Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE, NEW YORK.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Labour what are the duties of the Ministry of Labour Publicity Officer now forming one of the British delegation attending the International Labour Office Conference in New York?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Director of Public Relations, to whom I presume my hon. and gallant Friend means to refer, has functions similar to those of corresponding officers in other Departments. His knowledge and experience both in this country and the United States will be of the greatest assistance to the British delegation attending the International Labour Conference at New York.

Sir A. Southby: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any family reasons connected with the visit of this individual to the United States?

Mr. Bevin: I would not give any permission for such a visit. My hon. and gallant Friend should have a better opinion of me than that.

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider including the chief woman adviser to his Department, Miss Caroline Haslett, among the delegates who are to attend the International Labour Conference in New York?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, this will not be possible. In order to avoid misunderstanding, I ought to point out that although Miss Haslett gives valuable assistance to my Department in connection with women's training and otherwise, she is not correctly described as chief woman adviser to my Department.

Miss Cazalet: While apologising to my right hon. Friend for the mistake in my

Question, may I ask him whether, in view of the immense importance of women's work at the present time, it would not be desirable and possible even now to include some responsible woman in an advisory capacity at this important Conference in New York?

Mr. Bevin: I regret that it is not possible. This Conference is different from other International Labour Conferences. It has been the practice of the Ministry of Labour ever since the I.L.O. was established to encourage the sending of women to Geneva, both from the Department and from the Trades Union Congress. The special conditions associated with this Conference in New York make it impossible to send any more advisers.

Miss Cazalet: Does my hon. Friend know whether the trade unions are sending a woman in an advisory capacity?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know; probably they are.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Dots the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is the only delegation that does not include a woman, and in view of the big part taken by women in labour matters in Washington, will not this delegation cut a very poor figure if it does not include women?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

RETURNED MINERS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make it clear that men who have to move their homes to return to work in coalmines under his orders will have the expenses of removing to the coalfield and afterwards returning to the district from which they are taken fully met by his Ministry?

Mr. Bevin: Men who, on return to the coalfields, wish to bring their families to live with them, may receive, subject to the conditions of the Household Removal Scheme, an allowance to cover the cost of moving their families and furniture. The question whether a similar allowance would be granted in case of return to the workers' former employment would depend on the circumstances in which this takes place. I may say generally that if the men should be transferred again to


work of national importance, they will again be entitled to similar allowances.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Minister realise that I am trying to look to the pre-war period and to the re-establishment of these men, if it is possible, in the places of work from which they have been withdrawn by Government orders? Is that included?

Mr. Bevin: This decision applies to the war period. In answer to an hon. Member last week I said that I am considering the whole question of readjustment and reinstatement on the broadest possible scale and I cannot deal with it on a question concerning only one group.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that exminers who left the pits many years ago on medical advice, now settled in other occupations, in some cases on work of national importance, are directed to return to work underground by his Department, sometimes in water, against the advice of their own family doctors; that the medical officers of his Ministry often pass such men as fit for pit-work only to find, when they reach the pit-head, that the doctor employed by the colliery company declares them medically unfit; that some of them by this time have lost their original jobs; and whether he will take steps to prevent all this?

Mr. Bevin: In cases of doubt it is the practice to call for independent medical evidence. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that men are often wrongly certified fit for coalmining work, but I shall be glad to have any cases of alleged hardship brought forward by hon. Members investigated without delay.

Mr. Davies: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is harassing for these men to be submitted to three medical men and then in some cases to lose their original jobs?

Mr. Bevin: War is a harassing thing.

Mr. Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many ex-miners required to return to the pits are complaining against the medical examination of them by the medical officer of his Department at Bolton; and whether he will take appropriate steps in this matter.

Mr. Bevin: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at a case I am sending to him of a doctor passing a man to the pit and the colliery doctor afterwards refusing to pass him?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

JOINT CONSULTATIVE MACHINERY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to state the progress that has been made in the setting up of joint consultative machinery in industry; the number of committees in being; and whether resistance to his policy continues?

Mr. Bevin: As I stated last Thursday, I have no statistics available as to the number of joint councils in industry. In any case it would be misleading to assess the extension of arrangements for joint consultation in industry only by the number of works committees set up. The opposition to which I referred is due to the fact that other arrangements exist by agreement, and it would not be correct to assume that there is opposition to the principle of joint consultation in the workshops.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend said some time ago when I asked him this Question that he was making further inquiries to see what the numbers were, may I ask whether he has been able to ascertain an approximate idea of what progress has been made?

Mr. Bevin: I have not made specific inquiries. I would remind hon. Members that constantly getting returns and forms from industry meets with a great deal of resentment.

Mr. Mander: While appreciating that, may I ask whether, in view of the great importance of this matter, my right hon. Friend can give a general idea as to whether steady progress is being made in this respect?

Mr. Bevin: I have repeated to my hon. Friend time and time again that progress is going on every day, only it is not taking any particular form.

WOMEN (REGISTRATION).

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour how many women have registered with their age groups; how many have already received personal interviews; how many of those interviewed were already in employment; and how many have been directed to a change in their employment?

Mr. Bevin: The number of women who have registered with their age groups, including a provisional figure for the last registration on 27th September, 1941, is 2,151,280. The number of interviews according to the latest returns is 575,463. I regret that it would not be in the national interest to publish the other information asked for.

Major Lyons: Is any form of compulsion contemplated?

Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that Question.

Miss Cazalet: Have the majority of those who have been directed to other employment by now taken up that employment?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir, the great majority.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Dorothy Riding, Bessie Leigh and Beatrice Fearnley, all of Westhoughton, all unmarried, in business separately on their own account as hairdressers, after registering with their groups have been requested to undertake work in munition factories; that Form E.D. 346 does not indicate any compulsion but Form E.D.L. 74 states that they are required to take up such work; and will he make it clear as to whether compulsion is being resorted to in these cases and what are the penalties for refusal?

Mr. Bevin: I am having inquiries made into the cases of the three persons mentioned by my hon. Friend and will let him know the result. Meanwhile I am sending him copies of the forms to which he refers.

Mr. Davies: I have copies of the forms. What I want to know is this: Now that the right hon. Gentleman is compelling women to leave their present occupations for work of national importance, what are the penalties if they refuse?

Mr. Bevin: Happily, I have not had to compel very many. As I explained in reply to an earlier Question, I do use all the influence I can to get the women to transfer to national work. If a woman refused, I should have to issue a direction. There is no penalty until I issue a direction. If a direction is disobeyed, then she comes under Defence of the Realm Regulation 58A.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has already reached the stage of compulsion? One of these forms states in print that these women are required to undertake work of national importance.

TRANSFERRED WORKERS (REINSTATEMENT).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to ensure that the provisions made by law for the reinstatement in their pre-war employment, or compensation in lieu thereof, where reinstatement is not possible, at present applicable only to men called up for military service, are extended to include women?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Holland with Boston (Lieutenant Butcher) on 9th October, 1941.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor in office was urged from all sides of the House to provide this legal protection for men, and can he say what reason there is for not providing the protection, for what it is worth, to women?

Mr. Bevin: For the very reason given in my hon. Friend's last phrase—"for what it is worth." The scheme of transfer and removal of people has gone so far and over such a wide area, and some employers have had to engage four, five and six people for a place one after the other, that they cannot reinstate the whole six. Therefore, to reduce it to a piece of legislation of the character suggested would, in my view, be misleading and would cause difficulties at the end of the war. The Government are, therefore, considering means by a different device of accepting a token obligation from these people.

Mr. Lipson: Are the difficulties in regard to the reinstatement of women in principle greater than those with regard to the reinstatement of men?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot say.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

RESERVATION.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour whether any form of reservation is granted solely because a person's name is on the Central Register; whether this fact in itself operates as a deferment; and whether he will consider ordering an examination of all persons of an age liable to National Service who appear on the Register and who are not individually reserved?

Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first and second parts of the Question is, "No, Sir." The third part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Major Lyons: As the right hon. Gentleman informed the House some time ago that there had been no review of this Register for a year, does he not think that in present circumstances some examination should take place to deal with persons on the Register who are not employed in national work?

Mr. Bevin: That does not arise out of the Question.

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour from what date the system of bulk reservation will cease and the system of individual reservation commence; whether review will at once be made of all cases hitherto subject to collective reservation and of all cases where persons of military age, not, previously of a reserved employment, have been placed in central or decentralised Government employment of a nature falling within bulk reservation, and have been exempted up to now accordingly?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir; but I have the whole matter under active consideration.

Major Lyons: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer a week hence?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.

Major Lyons: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of it?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the necessity for providing a reasonable supply of beer for those who are working in the production of munitions of war, he will consider the advisability of allowing the brewers to retain their productive foremen and other skilled labour as these men are essential and irreplaceable?

Mr. Bevin: Brewers, head brewers, assistant brewers, and operative foremen are reserved by the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and Protected Work at and over the age of 30, and other workers in productive processes at and over the age of 35. Where it is considered essential to retain the services of key men below the age of reservation, application for deferment of calling up may be submitted.

Sir Smedley Crooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it will be difficult to obtain the necessary output from the men in the heavy industries unless they can get their beer?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the concern of the Conservatives that the workmen should obtain beer, would it not be desirable to encourage them to brew their own beer and do away with the brewers?

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that no man in industry essential to war production will be allowed to volunteer for service with the Royal Air Force unless he obtains the permission of the Labour Department?

Mr. Bevin: Men reserved under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and Protected Work, and men whose calling up has been deferred because they are engaged on work of urgent public importance, are not accepted as volunteers for His Majesty's Forces without the consent of my Department and the other Government Departments concerned. The only exception is that any man possessing the special qualifications required may join the R.A.F. or the Fleet Air Arm as air pilot or observer.

Miss Ward: Is the Minister not aware that the withdrawal of key men from industry without the pre-knowledge of


their employers may place certain industrial establishments engaged on important war production in a most unfortunate position? Will my right hon. Friend not reconsider the position?

Mr. Bevin: I have already explained that: a person can be taken away only where his special qualifications fit him to join the R.A.F. or the Fleet Air Arm as air pilot or observer, and unless we permit that, there may be no work from which to withdraw them.

Miss Ward: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there may be conflicting views about the usefulness of a man, and ought there not to be an arbitrator?

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of places for trainees in Government training centres; and the number of these places at present vacant?

Mr. Bevin: It would not be in the national interest to publish the information asked for in this Question.

Mr. Brooke: Does not the Minister think it is essential for Members of the House of Commons to know the number of training places?

Mr. Bevin: I gave an indication in the man-power Debate last week. As far as I am personally concerned—I cannot speak for the Government as a whole— if there were a Secret Session, there would be no difficulty in giving the information, which I cannot give in public.

Sir Robert Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if Members were to visit these places they would find out for themselves how valuable they are?

UNEMPLOYMENT (ACTS AND REGULATIONS).

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish a consolidated summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and Regulations for the guidance of the large number of persons concerned in the operation of this legislation?

Mr. Bevin: Such a summary already exists in the form of leaflets which are available at any Employment Exchange. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

WINTER ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour on what conditions are winter allowances granted to applicants for unemployment assistance; and for what period are such allowances applicable?

Mr. Bevin: Winter allowances are being granted for a period of 22 weeks from the beginning of November. Every case in which the applicant is providing his own fuel is considered on its merits, and officers have been instructed to pay special regard to all such cases where the applicant has no resources or only small resources beyond their allowances, or, in the case of pensioners, their basic and supplementary pensions.

Mr. Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform us what grants are being given in these cases and make available a copy of the instructions that have been sent to the area officers?

Mr. Bevin: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Mr. Edwards: asked the Minister of Health on what conditions are the winter allowances being granted to applicants for supplementary pensions; and what are the dates between which the winter allowances will operate?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Winter allowances are being granted for a period of 22 weeks from the beginning of November. Every case in which the applicant is providing his own fuel is considered on its merits and the; Assistance Board's officers have been instructed to pay special regard to all such cases where the applicants have no resources or only small resources beyond their basic and supplementary pensions.

Mr. Edwards: Will the Minister make available in the Library a copy of the instructions sent to the area officers who are dealing with that matter?

Mr. Brown: I should like to have notice of that Question.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Minister says that each case will be considered on its merits, does that not mean that it will be considered on the basis of a means test?

Mr. Brown: I think it is clear that each case must be considered in the light of its


own circumstances, but the returns so far available show that winter allowances have been given in 56 per cent. of supplementary pension cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

INTERNMENT CAMP, ISLE OF MAN.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the commandant of the Fascist internment camp in the Isle of Man has been changed; whether the free unlimited entry of food and drink has been restored; whether the police replace the military or are supplementary; and what is the weekly cost per head to the British taxpayer for housing, feeding and guarding these interned British subjects?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The internal administration of the camp at Peel has now been taken over by the Metropolitan Police, with the consequence that the former military Commander has been released for other duties, but a military guard outside the Peel Camp is being retained. As regards the entry of food, this is subject to the restrictions explained in my answer to the hon. Member for the Rusholme Division (Mr. Radford) on 2nd instant. Drink cannot be sent in to any detainee, but beer can be purchased from the canteen in the camp. The average daily consumption per head does not exceed a quarter of a pint, and there is no ground for any suggestion of excessive drinking. I regret that it is not possible to give precise figures of weekly cost such as my right hon. Friend desires.

Mr. Wedgwood: Now that the Home Office have taken over this particular camp, is there any prospect of their taking over the other camps in which friendly aliens are interned?

Mr. Morrison: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. All these camps are under the jurisdiction of the Home Office, but we use the military for the purpose of giving general assistance outside the camps, and I do not think it is necessary to take further action.

Mr. Wedgwood: Are the Commandants of other camps military officers or your officials?

Mr. Morrison: Speaking from recollection, I believe they are my officials.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary how many of the 700 odd persons, detained in the Isle of Man camp at which a disturbance recently occurred, were members of the British Union of Fascists; and how many of the persons transferred, prior to 8th October, as a result to prison in this country, were members of that organisation?

Mr. Morrison: The number of detainees in this camp was 520, of whom 180 were former members of the British Union. Of the 18 persons removed to prison after the disturbance, 14 belonged to that organisation.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister able to say whether the disturbance was largely the responsibility of one section of those in the camp, or was it of a general nature?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think everybody took part in the disturbances, but a substantial number did, and owing to the fact that it was dark, we could not see the political colours of all of them. The facts which I have given are reliable, and my hon. Friend can draw his own deductions from them.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Home Secretary how many of the three men who escaped from the Isle of Man internment camp were members of the Irish Republican Army?

Mr. Morrison: Two of the men who are at present awaiting trial have stated in court that they were members of the Irish Republican Army.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider the possibility of returning them to their own country, where large numbers of. men of that Army are already under detention?

Mr. Morrison: There are arguments both ways on that point, and I should not like to commit myself.

Mr. Leslie: Is it not the case that while they may be members of the Irish Republican Army, they may also be Fascists?

Mr. Morrison: It might be so.

FIRE SERVICE.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any further statement to make respecting proposals for improvement of pay, hours of duty and conditions of service put forward by the Fire Brigades Union on behalf of members of the Auxiliary Fire Service; and whether there is any immediate possibility of the adoption of any of the proposals?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made it clear to the Fire Brigades Union that the conditions of service of members of the National Fire Service who were formerly members of the Auxiliary Fire Service will continue to be based upon those of the Civil Defence Services generally and, in particular, that there can be no question of granting rates of pay related to those of regular firemen. As my hon. Friend is aware, there is standing machinery, in the form of a Joint Committee, for consultation between Government Departments concerned and representatives of accredited trade unions with regard to the pay and conditions of service of members of the Civil Defence Services. This is the machinery I am using, and propose to use, for consultation on proposals as to the pay and the conditions of service of members of the National Fire Service.

Mr. Sorensen: Are the various proposals and criticisms of fire brigade units receiving the constant attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and is any progress being made towards meeting the difficulties which have arisen?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, discussions take place with the consultative committee, and it is very desirable that negotiations with all public servants should take place between their accredited associations and the Government Departments and that they themselves should recognise that machinery and not use other machinery. May I add that I do not propose to surrender the principle that the basic conditions of service of all ranks in Civil Defence must be considered together. I am not willing to segregate the fire service from the other services.

ALIENS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the existing curfew imposing difficulties, in particular, affecting their employment and their desire to do fire-watching, he will con-

sider relaxing or raising the existing restrictions imposed on Austrian and German refugees from Nazi oppression and thus grant similar conditions to these as to Czech and other recognised friendly aliens?

Mr. H. Morrison: The curfew provisions apply to all aliens alike, irrespective of their nationality, and any alien can apply to the police for exemption from those provisions. As regards fire-watching, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) on Thursday last. As regards employment, chief constables have been advised by the Home Office that permits should be granted freely to those whose occupation requires them to be away from home after the curfew hour. I have no reason to think that chief constables are not administering these provisions in accordance with the advice which has been given to them. Instructions have been sent to chief constables as to the grant of exemptions for this purpose.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that these friendly aliens are assumed to be reliable enough for work in our factories, would not the lifting of the curfew altogether be desirable?

Mr. Morrison: I do riot think that it would be desirable, and I think that the advice I have given to the chief constables enables the matter to be dealt with reasonably.

COMMUNISTS.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary having regard to his decision that the British Communist Party are not loyal to this country, how many members of this party are now detained under Regulation 18B?

Mr. H. Morrison: No persons are detained under Defence Regulation I8B merely on the ground of membership of the British Communist Party.

Commander Bower: Since my right hon. Friend has decided—in my view, rightly—not to intern these people, whose loyalty he publicly impugned, will he now, in the fair and just exercise of his quasi-judicial powers, release such internees against whom there is no evidence of actual, and very slender presumption of potential, treachery?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I presume that the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to Members of the former British Union of Fascists.

Commander Bower: No, Sir.

Hon. Members: To Communists.

Mr. Morrison: There are no Communists interned. No British subjects who are Communists are interned as such.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Minister has not "decided," but has merely expressed a foolish opinion?

Mr. Morrison: Whether it is foolish or not is a matter of opinion.

Sir Irving Albery: Are any members of the British Union interned merely because they were members of the British Union?

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of certain changes in the relations between this country and Russia, he will now permit the release from internment of the three Communist ex-members of the German Reichstag?

Mr. Morrison: I have decided to authorise the release of one of the men referred to. Another case has been referred to the Category 19 Tribunal, whose report I am awaiting. The third man is in Canada, and I have given authority for his return to this country, if he is willing, with a view to the reference of his case to the Tribunal.

Mr. Wedgwood: Will their passports be marked "friendly alien"?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is there not more worry about one internee than about 99 just Englishmen?

CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Home Secretary in view of the public concern caused by the Fourteenth Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure and the importance of securing to the country the highest possible degree of effectiveness in war camouflage, how many meetings of the Advisory Committee on Camouflage have been held since the commencement of the present year and the respective dates of such meetings?

Mr. H. Morrison: Following upon the 14th Report from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, the whole subject of the protection of vital targets and areas by concealment and deception has been reviewed by a committee under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). The Advisory Committee on Camouflage has not met during the present year, but its technical committee, including those responsible for camouflage in the various Services and Departments, met regularly throughout the year at intervals of about a fortnight, until it was superseded by a newly constituted Camouflage Committee under the chairmanship of the Director of Camouflage.

Sir J. Graham Kerr: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the reports as to the effectiveness of camouflage in a certain theatre of war where carried out under the supervision of a distinguished biological specialist, a copy of which has been sent to him; and whether he will consider the possibility of making the services of the specialist in question available in the home country for supervisory and educative functions in respect of war camouflage in general?

Mr. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes." As regards the second part, I would refer to the reply given to a Question by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War on 29th July.

INTERNEES (AUSTRALIA).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that misapprehension still exists in Australia as to the quality of the aliens sent there for internment, the Australian public apparently believing them to be dangerous characters, he will make a statement calculated to remove this misapprehension and to explain the real facts?

Mr. H. Morrison: Some 2,500 internees were sent to Australia, of whom about 400 were persons detained on security-grounds, while the remaining 2,100 were Germans and Austrians who had been classified in categories "B" and "C" and were interned as a precautionary measure, in pursuance of the general


policy of internment which was adopted in the summer of 1940. I have frequently explained in this House that the fact that a person was interned in pursuance of this general policy and not on security grounds personal to himself was not intended to make, and does not in fact make, any reflection on his reliability or reputation. The circumstances in which His Majesty's Government sent to Australia internees who could not be regarded as dangerous from the security point of view were explained to the Government in that Dominion more than a year ago, but if amongst members of the general public in Australia there is still misapprehension as to the character of the internees, I hope that this answer may help to remove it.

Mr. Mander: Have not the Australian Government expressed willingness for these internees to join the Australian Army?

Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of that, but it may be so.

Mr. Mander: If that is so, why is permission still being refused?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the small proportion of aliens interned in Australia on behalf of His Majesty's Government, who have been authorised for release, as compared with the much greater proportion of men of similar quality who have been released from internment within the United Kingdom and are now usefully employed, he will take steps to speed up the release of reliable Australian internees and their return to this country, unless the Australian Government is willing to find a use for them out there?

Mr. Morrison: I fully sympathise with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, and I realise that many of the aliens who were included in the party sent to Australia are at a disadvantage as compared with aliens who were interned in this country and have subsequently been released. It is not possible—owing to practical difficulties—to arrange releases from Australia so freely as releases from the Isle of Man, and the proportion of applications for release is naturally smaller owing to the prospect of the long sea voyage. There is, however, no delay on the part of my Department in dealing with applications from Australia, and every-

thing which I can properly do to mitigate the difficulties will be done.

Miss Rathbone: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a large number of these men are of high quality in every way, and that it is a waste that they should be kept in internment? Possibly the Australian Government might go a little further, if they could be used there.

Mr. Morrison: That would be a proper question for the Parliament of Australia. I would not like to give an answer to it.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it not possible that if the Australian Government were approached by the right hon. Gentleman, they would be willing to accept these people for liberation in Australia, where they could be used?

Mr. Morrison: Naturally, there was a clear understanding that the immigration policy of the Australian Government was their business, and I do not feel it is possible for me to intervene in the way suggested.

Mr. Sorensen: Had the internees who were released certain facilities in Australia before they departed for this country?

Mr. Mander: May we take it that no objection is raised from this side?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that I ought to add to the answer which I have given.

SHELTERS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he has had tests made, and can give any information, as to the iron-bolted arch air-raid shelter made by the Stanton Iron Works Company, Nottingham; what is the cost of making it; and how many people it will shelter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that the company manufactures more than one type of bolted arch shelter and it has not been possible definitely to identify that to which reference is made. The testing of shelters for the purpose of official approval of design is limited to anti-debris indoor shelters. No shelter of this type has been submitted by the company for test.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that dormitory air-raid shelters in all parts of the country are now adequately provided with canteens and medical posts;


and what is he doing to remedy the conditions in an underground shelter in a Northern city, which even when occupied by thousands of women and children, in conditions of damp and discomfort, is provided with only one or two nurses and with no canteen arrangements or medical post?

Mr. E. Brown: Substantial improvements have been made in dormitory air-raid shelters throughout the country. Progress is continuing but shortage of materials and labour has unfortunately prevented complete provision to the standards I have laid down. Canteens are available in over 2,000 shelters in the London Region. Schemes have been agreed with 90 local authorities in provincial vulnerable areas, and in many cases the canteens have already been provided. In the London Region 257 medical aid posts have been set up, and over 100 in the provinces. Plans have been made for setting-up further posts should the dormitory shelter population increase.
The shelter to which my hon. Friend refers in the second part of the Question is a popular but not very satisfactory one, notwithstanding that much money, time and labour have been devoted to improving it. Its construction and dimensions make a fixed medical aid post or a fixed canteen impracticable, but the local authority have made arrangements whereby nurses visit the shelter nightly, doctors are on call near each of its seven entrances, and a mobile canteen is ready for service at short notice. I believe that the local authority are doing the best they can having regard to the exceptional circumstances, but if my hon. Friend has any practical suggestions for improvement, I shall be glad to consider them.

Mr. Adams: Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into this particular case, because it is clearly one in which remedies could be applied?

Mr. Brown: As my hon. Friend knows, I myself have visited the shelter, and I can say that it is causing as much worry and correspondence to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security as anything else in the country. It presents a very difficult problem from the point of view which he and I have in common.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman abandoning the case because it is difficult?

Mr. Brown: Not at all. I have already told my hon. Friend that I would be very glad to receive any suggestions.

AIR-RAID WARNINGS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether he is able to make any statement in regard to possible modification of the air-raid warning system?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Government have decided to discontinue the "Yellow" preliminary caution message. This is a warning sent to headquarters of Air-Raid Precautions services and to certain other establishments. Experience of raiding conditions has shown that the preliminary caution message can safely be dispensed with. It is no longer required by the Civil Defence services and the needs of essential industry have been otherwise provided for. Its discontinuance will relieve the Post Office telephone system of a very large amount of work. The public warning system is not affected by the change.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the decision to give warnings still rest with the Fighter Command?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Although in certain respects there is active participation by my Department, fundamentally the decision rests with the Fighter Command.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the new situation affect certain steps that are normally taken on the receipt of the warning, for example, by certain public vehicles?

Mr. H. Morrison: It may affect them in part, but, on the whole, that will be of advantage, because disturbance will be minimised. In the light of experience we feel that it is a perfectly safe step to take.

REST CENTRE, GREAT SANKEY AND PENKETH.

Sir R. Young: asked the Minister of Health whether a letter, addressed by the clerk of the Great Sankey Parish Council to the public assistance officer,. Preston, and by him to the senior regional officer of the Ministry of Health, has yet been replied to and, if so, why the delay and the terms of the reply, and whether


anything definite has been done to give the vulnerable areas of Great Sankey and Penketh a suitable and safe emergency rest centre, seeing that the surrounding towns are also industrial and vulnerable areas?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. The original letter from the Clerk of the Great Sankey Parish Council was, unfortunately, not received, but a copy has been obtained and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of my reply. A large number of buildings in the Warrington rural district, of which the parishes of Great Sankey and Penketh form part, have been earmarked for use as rest centres and I have no reason to believe that the accommodation so provided is either inadequate or unsuitable.

BILLETING.

Sir R. Young: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the number of evacuees billeted in the Windlesham and Sunningdale, Surrey, area; whether he is aware that there is much complaint that, while village houses are overcrowded, a number of large houses, occupied by one or two people, some of whom have never taken in an evacuee, and have houses in other parts of the country, have not been used; and will he instruct his officials to make inquiries regarding this matter in that part of the county?

Mr. E. Brown: Separate figures are not available for Windlesham and Sunningdale;. These two parishes are included in the rural districts of Bagshot and Windsor respectively, and the number of evacuated persons billeted there at present are estimated at approximately: Bagshot rural district, 1,000; Windsor rural district, 1,200. If my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of the large houses to which he refers, I will cause immediate inquiries to be made.

Sir R. Young: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a clergyman of advancing age was prosecuted at Camberley for not taking in evacuees while people with large houses in that town had none, and will he see that the same consideration is shown to working people who plead they need an empty room for visiting members of their families, without servants, as is shown to rich people with such excuses in those areas?

Mr. Brown: I am most anxious to remedy complaints of that kind, but, as

my hon. Friend will realise, large empty houses may sometimes be reserved for Service purposes. If, however, he has any particular case in mind, I should be glad to look into it. I have inquired into this matter in every region in the Kingdom, and in certain regions I am taking action by appointing a special inspector from London, with power to billet where necessary.

Sir R. Young: Do not the published statements by responsible people in the Press show that the complaints made are amply justified?

Mr. Brown: I shall make inquiries through my officials, and also through the local authorities and the Women's Voluntary Services, which, as my hon. Friend knows, have done most of the work of liaison.

Sir Annesley Somerville: Is not this the first time this allegation has been made in regard to this district? Arc not the arrangements generally extremely satisfactory for the evacuees, and have not these great houses been taken advantage of to the fullest extent?

Mr. Brown: Sometimes houses are vacant for urgent reasons of national interest, but in any case, no matter how good the arrangements have been—and I agree with my hon. Friend that these areas have done a great deal for the comfort of evacuees—if there are large houses which can be used, they ought to be used.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to raise the payment to householders who cannot afford to maintain evacuees on the allowance provided by the Government; and whether, equally, he will consider payment to those householders who have to act as foster-mothers and nursemaids to evacuee children placed with them?

Mr. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 15th October.

PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Pensions how many persons in Nottingham and the surrounding district


have written to him demanding equal compensation for men and women civilians injured owing to enemy action?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Correspondence reaching the Ministry is not classified according to the place of origin and the only communication which I am able to trace is a copy of a resolution passed by the Nottingham branch of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Great Britain and Ireland.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that I have heard from a responsible woman that the Minister has had 1,200 letters and postcards, I find it difficult to understand his answer. As he has had representations from all over the country, does he not think it would be more in accord with our democratic principles for him to reconsider this matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I have nothing to add to the full statement I made in the Debate on this matter.

FACTORY ACCIDENT, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether the fullest investigation will be made into the causes of an explosion in a Yorkshire factory resulting in the death of four women?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I understand that the inquest on the victims of this sad accident has been adjourned to 28th October. The fullest investigation of this matter is also being made by His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives.

PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (CLOSING HOURS).

Mr. James Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he can make any statement as to the rules for the hours of closing of places of public entertainment during the coming winter?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government attach importance to giving the public reasonable opportunity for recreation after the day's work is done and their aim is to keep interference with public recreation to such a minimum as is consistent with the war

effort. The hour of closing of places of public entertainment was fixed by Order under the Defence Regulations at 11 p.m., except in the West End of London, where the closing hour is 6 p.m. There the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis can, and in practice does, allow entertainments to continue to a later hour. Chief officers of police outside London are also empowered to fix an earlier closing hour than 11 p.m. where they think this is necessary to minimise risk from enemy action.
The Government have reviewed the position, and with a view to securing some measure of uniformity in administration I am taking steps to advise chief officers of police that unless heavy raiding calls for special measures in any area, the closing hour should not be fixed earlier than 10 p.m. and that wherever possible they should not fix a closing hour, thereby securing the 11 p.m. closing under the Order. Chief officers of police will also be advised to have regard to existing arrangements for staggering closing hours for the purpose, so far as possible, of flattening the transport peak.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Minister of War Transport and advise him of the sentiments contained in his reply, especially having regard to those towns which have decided to take off buses and other forms of public transport at 9.30 p.m. even though public-houses are open until 10 o'clock and other places of amusement even until midnight?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot express an opinion on the merits of the points my hon. Friend has put, but he will no doubt be glad to know that this reply has been given as a result of consultation between my Department and the Ministry of War Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (MEDICAL INSPECTION AND TREATMENT).

Mr. Messer: asked the President of the Board of Education whether there is now a routine medical examination of all evacuated school children; and what arrangements are made for the medical treatment of any who may be found to be in need of attention?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): Routine medical inspection is being carried out in virtually all reception areas. All evacuated children who fall within the prescribed age groups are examined. In one or two areas a modified scheme of inspection has been adopted on the lines suggested in paragraph 4 of the Board's Circular 1523, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The Board have laid it down that the facilities provided for medical treatment of local school children in these areas should be equally available for evacuated children.

Mr. Messer: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the procedure to be adopted when the child is found to be suffering from a complaint requiring institutional treatment and the local authority desire the child to be transferred but have no authority to do so?

Mr. Butler: I am sorry I cannot answer that off-hand.

WAR-TIME NURSERIES.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposes to make it compulsory for local authorities to provide nursery schools for the children of women anxious to help the war effort?

Mr. Butler: Provision for the purpose will, I think, best be made by means of war-time nurseries. In Circular 1553, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, I have asked local education authorities to co-operate to the full with maternity and child welfare authorities in the establishment of these nurseries. The arrangements proposed do not involve compulsion.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to limited accommodation for the children of women war-workers our war effort is being impeded?

Mr. Butler: I fully appreciate the importance of the problem, and we are trying to push forward a scheme for war nurseries as rapidly as possible.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health what has been the percentage increase in pulmonary tuberculosis during

the war; in what age-groups the increase is most marked; and whether it is proposed to take any special steps to deal with this problem?

Mr. E. Brown: On the basis of provisional mortality figures for the years 1939 and 1940, the rate in England and Wales for the population as a whole was 9.7 per cent. higher than in 3939, the highest rate being 15 per cent. among women between the ages of 15 and 25. In the first quarter of 1941 there was, however, a reduction of 7 per cent. for the population as a whole, and of 4 per cent. for women between the ages of 15 and 25. With the co-operation of the Medical Research Council, I have arranged for an expert investigation into the possible causes of increase. Everything possible is being done to maintain the tuberculosis service.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

HORSE-BREEDING.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture why, in the new schedule of rations for horses, supplies of fodder are to be made available for the breeding of thoroughbreds but not of other light horses; and whether he will make arrangements to ensure the maintenance in this country of the breeding of ponies and good heavyweight light horses which are essential to the country?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Breeders of thoroughbred horses are allowed rations for feeding-stuffs, if they need them, because the Government are anxious to maintain the industry, which is of great national value in relation to the quantity of feeding-stuffs required. The breeding of other light horses can be carried on on agricultural holdings which grow sufficient fodder, and I have received no information of any serious decline in the breeding of such horses.

WAR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES (INSTRUCTIONS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will place in the Library copies of any instructions issued by him to war agricultural executive committees?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. The war agricultural executive committees have been


appointed to act as my agents, and any instructions which I issue to them are, in the nature of things, confidential.

Sir J. Mellor: Does any question of security arise in this matter? If not, why should there be any secrecy about these instructions when the committees' decisions affect the personal rights of His Majesty's subjects?

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that power always corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Mr. Hudson: I can only repeat what I told the hon. Member, that the instructions issued are confidential.

Mr. De la Bère: I do not like it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Cannot the Minister follow the practice of the Services of issuing orders which are marked "Confidential; not for promulgation," while general orders on non-confidential matters are freely circulated?

RATS (DESTRUCTION).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will institute a national drive for the destruction of rats on the lines already pursued by those counties which are doing most for their destruction?

Mr. Hudson: A national campaign for the destruction of rats has been in operation for some time. The general lines of the campaign have been settled in the light of experience, including that of counties who have been more successful than others in the matter of rat destruction.

Mr. Hannah: On the whole, are we not very dilatory in dealing with rats?

Mr. Hudson: We have improved in that respect since June.

HOSPITAL SERVICE.

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health whether the elected representatives of the people will serve on the management committees of voluntary hospitals now that public money is being used to subsidise these institutions?

Mr. E. Brown: As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for

St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and to supplementary questions on 9th October, the point raised by the hon. Lady is one for discussion with representatives of municipal hospital authorities and of the voluntary hospital movement at the appropriate stage.

OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish a consolidated summary of the Acts and Regulations relating to old age and widows' pensions, respectively, for the assistance of the many persons concerned?

Mr. E. Brown: I am satisfied that in present circumstances the publication of such a summary would not be justified. Leaflets explaining the conditions for the award of old age and widows' pensions are available at all post offices.

Mr. McNeil: asked the Minister of Health how many additional applications from old age pensioners he estimated would be made following the annulment of the household means test on 1st July, 1941; for how many the Assistance Board made staff preparations; and whether since the number of supplementary pensions has risen by only 100,000 by the end of July, he has any explanation to offer for the difference?

Mr. Brown: The Assistance Board inform me that they made their arrangements on the basis that the number of new supplementary pensions resulting from the new legislation might reach 250,000. There were, however, no data on which a close estimate could be based. The Board are making inquiries into the extent to which pensioners who applied unsuccessfully for supplementary pensions under the previous Regulations may have failed to realise that a fresh application is necessary if they wish their cases to be reconsidered. As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on Tuesday last, the number of persons already receiving supplementary pensions who benefited from the provisions of the new legislation up to August last was about 216,000.

Mr. McNeil: Is the Minister aware that it is my experience, and the experience of many Members of this House, that these


pensioners are not aware of their new rights and will he take steps to publicise their rights before the onset of winter?

Mr. Brown: I will do my best, and I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising the matter. I am sure it will do good. I would like to inform the House that the Board have decided to examine all "nil" cases with a view to making a further approach to pensioners who appear to be entitled to a supplementary pension.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS (PEDESTRIANS).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether there is any compulsion on pedestrians to obey the traffic lights; and, if not, whether he is, in the interests of public safety, prepared to make and enforce a regulation to this effect?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): The answer to both parts of the Question is, "No, Sir," although, in the interests of their own safety and good road behaviour, pedestrians should not cross against the lights.

Sir T. Moore: Why is there this discrimination between motorists and pedestrians in regard to compulsion, since the safety of both is involved?

Colonel Llewellin: It is very difficult to apply compulsion to pedestrians. In many cases they cannot see which way the light is shining when they cross the road.

NURSES' SALARIES (COMMITTEE).

Miss Lloyd George: asked the Minister of Health whether he can make a statement as to the appointment of a committee on the salaries of nurses?

Mr. E. Brown: I have appointed Lord Rushcliffe as Chairman of the Committee which I have set up for the purpose of drawing up, as soon as possible, agreed scales of salaries and emoluments for State registered nurses employed in England and Wales in Hospitals and in the Public Health Services, including the service of district nursing, and for student nurses in hospitals approved as training schools by the General Nursing Council

for England and Wales. The Committee will consist of two panels, one representing employers and the other representing employees, of equal numbers. At my request the following organisations have agreed to nominate representatives to serve on these panels:

Employers' Panel.
No. of representatives.


British Hospitals Association (in association with King Edward's Hospital Fund for London and the Nuffield Trust)
…
6


County Councils Association
…
4


Association of Municipal Corporations
…
4


London County Council
…
3


Urban District Councils Association
…
1


Rural District Councils Association
…
1


Queen's Institute of District Nursing
…
1




20

Employees' Panel.



Royal College of Nursing
9


Trades Union Congress
5


National. Association of Local Government Officers
 3


Royal British Nurses Association
1


British College of Nurses
1


Association of Hospital Matrons
1



20

Miss Lloyd George: In view of the acute shortage of nurses and the urgency of the matter, could the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to announce the names of the Committee?

Mr. Brown: I think, in about a fortnight.

Mr. Messer: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable to have a representative of the male nurses on the Committee?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Are nurses employed in mental institutions covered by this inquiry?

Mr. Brown: The class of nurses covered will be, as I said, State registered nurses employed in hospitals and in the public health services. Some nurses are already covered by agreements made through the National Joint Council for Local Authorities; others are not.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the Minister direct the attention of the Committee to


the desirability of making a provident rather than a pensions fund which would operate more equitably in those cases?

Mr. Brown: I must leave the Committee, under the terms of their reference, to agree on the best method of dealing with this vital subject.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health whether the committee he is setting up to make recommendations with regard to salaries payable to nurses will have powers to make recommendations with regard to nurses employed in industry?

Mr. Brown: No. It would not, in my view, be appropriate to refer to this Committee the salaries of this class of nurse.

MINISTERS OF PENSIONS AND LABOUR (CONVERSATIONS).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has any decision to report arising out of his conversations with the Minister of Labour?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply.

Miss Ward: Have conversations, in fact, started?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Lady that conversations have started.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CIVIL SERVANTS' PAY (INCOME TAX).

Major Peto: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the unfairness of deducting Income Tax from the pay of civil servants six months in advance of the general public; and, as this is causing serious financial embarrassment to many temporary civil servants, he will, in future legislation, consider placing such servants on the same plane as the public?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have received representations in this matter, but I regret that I cannot see my way to propose any alteration of the law directed to changing the long-established system under which Income Tax in respect of Civil Service

pay and other remuneration payable out of public funds is deducted as and when payment is made. Special consideration is given by the taxation authorities to cases in which it is represented that the amount of the normal Income Tax deductions would cause serious financial embarrassment with a view to spreading the deductions over an extended period.

WAR LOANS (ADVERTISING).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been spent on advertisements urging the public to invest in War Loan and interest-free loans, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: Since November, 1939, approximately £968,000 has been spent on advertising the various forms of War Loan. No money has been spent on advertising interest-free loans, and this form of lending has been the result of the patriotism of those who have spontaneously chosen to assist our war effort in this way.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor arrange to take a sum at least equal to the interest which would be payable on the amount subscribed to interest-free loans had that amount been invested in War Loan, so as to advertise encouraging people to lend their money to the Government free of interest?

Sir K. Wood: I will think that over.

UCKFIELD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (PAYMENT FOR SERVICES).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Uckfield Rural District Council has recently had to arrange for an overdraft of £11,000, with the consequent burden of charges on the ratepayers, by reason of the delay of Government Departments in paying for services, ranging from £9,000 in lieu of rates' on requisitioned properties, and £3,300 for evacuation schemes, to smaller sums for air-raid precautions and fire brigades; and whether he will arrange for a system of imprest, to avoid this state of affairs?

Sir K. Wood: As the reply is somewhat lengthy, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. De la Bère: As the Uckfield Rural District Council are known to me, and as I have a very high regard for them, I hope my right hon. Friend will do everything possible to expedite this matter for them.

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I will.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is there any information to show that other authorities are in a similar situation?

Sir K. Wood: I will inquire.

Following is the reply:

It is the practice to make advances on account of contributions in lieu of rates where it is found that, owing to the number of Government requisitions, the local authority would otherwise be financially embarrassed. The Uckfield Rural District Council asked for, and received, a payment on account in March of this year, and a similar arrangement would have been made in September had they informed the Treasury Valuer of their difficulties. As regards expenditure on evacuation, I would refer to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health. In regard to grant-aided A.R.P. services, it has recently been arranged to increase the number of advance payments made in each year from four to six, and together these payments cover 97½ per cent. of the amount estimated to be due for the whole year, final payments being made after audit. A system of imprest is already in operation for expenditure of local authorities which falls to be reimbursed in full, whether on A.R.P., Fire Prevention or the National Fire Service.

WAR DAMAGE CLAIMS (SERVING SOLDIERS).

Major Peto: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether special care is taken by the War Damage Commission to ensure that serving soldiers unable personally to attend to their war damages homes are not thereby prejudiced in the presentation of their claims?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury(Captain Crookshank): Yes, Sir. It is open to such a claimant to make his claim through an agent, for example, a member of his family, and to authorise the agent to receive payment on his behalf.

AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL, SCOTLAND (VETERINARY PROFESSION).

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now been able to reconsider the composition of the Agricultural Improvement Council for Scotland and the fact that despite the importance of animal farming in Scotland the veterinary profession is not represented thereon; whether inquiries have been made as to why the representation of the veterinary profession was provided for on the parallel body for England and Wales; and whether he will now arrange to make the Scottish Council equally effective for its purpose?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I would refer to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on 24th July. The claim for the appointment of a representative of the veterinary profession on the Agricultural Improvement Council for Scotland was carefully considered, but it was not thought advisable to constitute the Council on the basis of representation of the various sections of the agricultural industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries took the same view as regards the Council for England and Wales, and I understand that the member of the veterinary profession who is on the Agricultural Improvement Council for England and Wales was no' appointed as a representative of the profession.

SMALL TRADERS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received a report from his Retail Trade Advisory Committee on the problems of the small trader; and whether he intends to publish the report?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade(Captain Waterhouse): My right hon. Friend has received an interim report this week on certain problems which the Committee have had under review and will publish in due course.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my hon. and gallant Friend fully appreciate the urgency of the need for publication of this report and for dealing with the matter?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir.

Sir Smedley Crooke: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a large firm of chemists are now selling shoe laces in their chain stores, and does he not think they would be better engaged in selling drugs and corn cures?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BROADCAST NEWS (PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information the circumstances under which his Department has altered the Parliamentary reports of the British Broadcasting Corporation; how many times has this been done during this year; and the reasons why?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): My right hon. Friend has been advised that during the course of this year, the Ministry of Information has on one occasion asked the B.B.C. not to repeat in their news bulletin a speculation made by an hon. Member about the future policy of a friendly foreign State.

Mr. Mander: Is that the only occasion on which the Minister has intervened at all in this matter?

Mr. Thurtle: That is so.

BRITISH VISITORS (CANADA AND UNITED STATES).

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Information the number of persons who have proceeded, at his request or that of his predecessor, to the United States of America or Canada on a mission to present the point of view of the people of this country since July last; and whether they include any Members of this House?

Mr. Thurtle: Four, Sir, of whom one was a Member of the House, and one other was a former Member.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that a large number of self-styled missionaries have gone to the United States and Canada and have done a great deal of harm there by their interference in local affairs, will my hon. Friend consider whether any means can be taken by his Department to discourage them from announcing that they are going on

missions when in fact they are only going because of their own wishes?

Mr. Thurtle: The Noble Lord may take it that it is the desire of the Minister that people should be discouraged from making such statements.

BROADCASTS (ENEMY INTERFERENCE).

Captain Plugge: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Information what steps can be and are being taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to deal with enemy interference with British broadcasts?

Mr. Thurtle: The B.B.C. have already taken steps which have had the effect of reducing this interference. Other plans are in hand.

Captain Plugge: Is it not necessary for very drastic action to be taken in this matter, as it may lead to the complete wiping out of the British Broadcasting Corporation as it exists to-day?

Mr. Thurtle: This is a technical matter, and I do not think that I can add anything to my answer, but the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that the B.B.C. is fully alive to the danger of such interference.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Minister bear in mind the amusement value of such interruptions?

ENEMY-DAMAGED FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with foodstuffs salvaged after air raids, stored in the Ministry's depots, and then disposed of to firms engaged in illicit dealings in foodstuffs?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): No, Sir. Foodstuffs which have been damaged in this country as a result of enemy action are, as a general rule, disposed of by my Department, through reliable trade channels. While occasional small parcels may have passed into undesirable hands, I have no certain knowledge of any such cases.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is it a fact that these auctions are still allowed to continue, and that any person may enter and bid for commodities which are salvaged?

Major Lloyd George: I should not think so. If the hon. Member knows of a case, I shall be glad to hear of it. Now that there is licensing, I think it is still less likely.

Mr. Walkden: I will communicate with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the Memorandum reported to the House on 2nd October as having been submitted to him by the Co-ordinating Sub-committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir. Not only will I give my continuing attention to this matter, but, in view of the responsibilities which Parliament has laid upon me in respect of Memoranda from the Select Committee, I read the Memorandum myself within five days of its being sent forward in August, and minuted it immediately to the Departments concerned, requesting their consideration and action. As a result of the reports which I received, I came to the conclusion that the Sub-committee were not fully informed upon the operational aspects of the questions raised, nor upon the wider questions of policy, and that it would not be wise to follow the course they recommended.
I could not agree that as a general rule Ministers in charge of Departments should attend before the Select Committees as this might be unduly burdensome. However, in this case it seemed desirable that an exception should be made, and accordingly on 19th September, a month ago, I had my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) informed that both the late and the present Ministers of Aircraft Production would be willing to attend a meeting of the Select Committee and explain the position fully to them. This meeting would have taken place already but for the fact that Lord Beaverbrook had to go to Russia. It will now be arranged at an early date. I should be very sorry if it were supposed that His Majesty's Government did not pay the closest attention to

all the reports, whether published or secret, of the Select Committee or that we did not value and do not value the services they render to the efficiency of our national war effort.
Neither I nor any other Minister has ever attempted to influence the Committee, but since this matter was raised in the House through the application of the four Members concerned for discharge, I have considered very carefully, on its merits, the question of whether the Memorandum could have been made to the House or whether it should have been made to the Prime Minister personally, in accordance with the decision of the House of 26th November, 1940. Although it is not for me to decide, I may say I am convinced in my judgment that the view expressed to me by the Air Staff when I asked at a later stage for their opinion, that this Memorandum is not suitable for publication in time of war, is well founded, and I am very glad that the Select Committee decided in that sense of their own volition. All the more is it desirable, as the Memorandum cannot be published, that the Government should endeavour to satisfy the Committee upon the merits. Hence the exceptional procedure I have adopted in allowing Ministers to attend the Committee. Let me once again assure the House of the very great respect with which their wishes and those of the Select Committees appointed under their authority have always been, and will always be treated by His Majesty's Government.
There is one further point. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) is reported as having stated yesterday that there were two Reports, of which only the longer was presented to me. I, of course, can only deal with what is brought before me. With regard to his suggestion that I came to a decision on the question of publication, I have already said that neither I nor any other Member of the Government has ever made any such decision, although individual Ministries when asked by the Select Committee may have given an opinion on any point submitted to them.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, having regard to his statement that the Select Committee were not informed of the operational aspects of their report, he contemplates making any provision in future that these


Committees can be informed of the operational aspect of their reports to prevent a recurrence of the serious difference which has arisen in this case?

The Prime Minister: Each case must be judged as it arises, and, as it is well known, up to the present that aspect has not been brought before the Committee. But in respect of this particular case, it seems to me that the matter could not be fully apprehended without that side being brought in, and in view, as I say, of the very proper interest which the House has taken in the matter, I propose that the practice shall be waived in this particular instance.

Mr. Leach: May I ask the Prime Minister to take note of the fact that the four Members concerned—not all present to-day—will be extremely grateful to him for the promptitude with which he has taken up this matter and the absence of all delay? Whether our findings turn out to be right or wrong, they will at least be properly examined.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Lees-Smith: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the forthcoming Business of the House?

The Prime Minister: The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Marriage (Members of His Majesty's Forces) Bill [Lord's] and any outstanding Business. The Adjournment of the House will be moved and a debate will take place on the Health of the Nation.
Second Sitting Day—The Adjournment of the House will be moved, and a Debate will take place on the Railways Agreement.
Third Sitting Day—An opportunity will present itself for matters affecting the conduct and progress of the war to be raised. Unless there are any unexpected developments, it is not the intention of the Government to make any Ministerial statement. Afterwards, if there is time, a Debate will take place on the Mercantile Marine. When we have disposed of any question which may arise on Business, I have a further statement to make about

our future arrangements, which I consider it would be advisable to make in Secret Session.

Mr. Lees-Smith: With regard to the third Sitting Day, I understand that the Prime Minister does not wish to make one of his usual war surveys, but if in accordance with the first sentence Members of the House desire to raise questions about the war, I presume there will then be some Ministerial statement in reply, either from himself or from one of his colleagues?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the Government have always been allowed to conduct their own business in their own way, but sometimes it is felt that the cause is better served by silence, sometimes by speech in reply and sometimes by rejoinder.

Earl Winterton: Would it not be rather an unusual state of affairs if in regard to any suggestions as to the conduct of the war, however humble those suggestions might be, that we might make to the Government, some Member of the Government did not reply to those suggestions?

The Prime Minister: No doubt some acknowledgment would be made of any suggestions of importance and value, but what I wish to suggest to the House is that I do not think it is an occasion for another review upon the war such as I gave a little more than a fortnight ago. I hope that later on it will be possible for me to give another.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Prime Minister arrange for a member of the War Cabinet to be present on the third Sitting Day to watch the proceedings, and, if necessary, to reply?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly, if necessary.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Debate on the Mercantile Marine is intended to take place on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), or upon the Adjournment?

The Prime Minister: It is thought better that it should take place upon the Adjournment.

Sir P. Harris: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Fish Sales (Charges) Order, which was put down last week, has been entirely dropped?

The Prime Minister: I understand that this matter has been indefinitely postponed.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: In respect of the Debate on the Railways Agreement, do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that it will take place upon the Adjournment? Does it not require the consent of the House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am advised that it does not require the specific assent of the House of Commons, but, of course, the House can express its views in the most effective and decisive manner.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Amendments to Solicitors Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered, "That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleasd to give leave to the Lord Beaverbrook to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir John Wardlaw-Milne.]

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken, that Strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question, "That Strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

The House subsequently resumed in Public Session.

SERVICE PAY AND DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): To-day we have to debate a White Paper which has been issued from my Department dealing with improved arrangements for making provisions for the families of members of His Majesty's Forces during the present war. I am aware that there had been a demand for a general all-round increase in pay and allowances. This matter was very carefully considered by the Cabinet, and the decision was arrived at that it would not be possible to make this all-round increase. There were two reasons for that. One was that a flat-rate all-round increase would be so costly that it would be almost impossible to contemplate at the present time. I myself had another objection—and I think a much more important objection—to this scheme for a general all-round increase, inasmuch as I was satisfied, from my experience of over two years in connection with making war service grants as an addition to the allowances made from the Services, that any flat-rate increase could not possibly cover all the cases of hardship, and that unless you devised some scheme whereby real hardship could be alleviated it would be useless to go on with a scheme that would meet only a very small proportion of the hardship cases.
Therefore, I submitted to the Government the scheme which is outlined in the White Paper, which I feel will meet the position and bring about decided improve-

ments as regards the families, dependants and children of men serving in the Forces. My experience in dealing with this matter has proved to me that many families have been compelled to live on a lower standard than should reasonably be expected, not due entirely to the normal rates of Service pay and allowances, but to the fact that the war service grants scheme, which I have been administering for over two years, was so narrowly drawn that it did not give me a real chance to deal with the many cases of hardship. Under the Regulations we had this method. First of all, there was taken the pre-Service income of the household and then the in-Service income of the household. A comparison was made and both cases were reduced to a unit figure for a household. I found that many of those who had been in low-paid employment before they joined the Services, and those out of employment for a considerable time, so that they had to draw unemployment or Assistance Board benefit, were, as a result of the unit figure basis, actually better off in the Services than they had been in civil life. I did succeed in obtaining improvements in the scheme whereby I was able to load-up in the case of those who received a low standard of pay or were not receiving any pay at all for work before they joined the Forces. That helped considerably, but it was not quite enough. I shall quote a ease later on to show how hardly this worked, and I am now asking the House to agree to the re-casting of the old system so that we can, I think, meet every case of hardship.
Very careful consideration has been given to this matter. Those of my Department who have been administering the old scheme have been able to make very valuable suggestions and I have also consulted Members of this House and of the Forces, both officers and men in the ranks, so that I have got to know pretty well where the difficulties come in. But if in the course of this Debate to-day suggestions are made which appear to me to be worthy of consideration, I can assure hon. Members that I shall be glad to have their suggestions. May I explain the scheme as outlined in the White Paper? Paragraph 1 deals with the question of the minimum standard. In assessing the needs of the household under the old


system, we took, as I said before, the pre-Service and in-Service standards and arrived at a unit figure. That unit figure varied considerably, because in some cases a household received a higher income before the war than after the commencement of the war. I came to the conclusion that the best method was to set a minimum standard per unit below which there would be nothing taken into account, so that we could give a guarantee that, at any rate, every household had that minimum standard unit figure. I took advice on this matter from various sources, including the medical profession, and we fixed that minimum standard—and I want to make it clear that it is a minimum standard—at 16s. a week per unit. That is for maintenance, after providing for rent and other commitments which include rates, insurance premiums and hire purchase instalments. Then there are "et ceteras" and I think it is just as well that I should try and let hon. Members know what we really cover in the way of other commitments. I wanted to have the "et ceteras" in because if there had been included in the White Paper and in the Regulations everything I could think of, it would have been just possible that something would have been left out. If something had been approved by the House and no discretion had been allowed to the Minister, many things that could have been put down as commitments might not have been allowed.
Commitments other than those mentioned in the White Paper that have been allowed in the past, and will be allowed in the future, are mortgage interest, repairs to property where the owner is living in his own house, educational charges, war damage contributions, and additional rent if a house is bombed and the person concerned has to take another house and pay a double rent. I want to make it quite clear that for an adult the unit figure is 16s., and that two children under school-leaving age count as one unit, but that when a child over the normal school-leaving age—I believe it is fifteen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fourteen."]—Whatever is the law in this matter. When a child above the normal school-leaving age continues at school, we are going to reckon that child, after 15 years of age, as an adult at one unit. If the child continues his or her education, we shall allow not only educational charges but count the child as a full unit.

because we know that growing lads over 14 can eat as much as an adult and that very often their clothes cost as much. I want it to be understood that all this does not interfere in any way with the ordinary Service grants from the Service Departments, which will go to the families as in the past. It is only when they have received these Service grants that we take into consideration what is required in addition. The commitments referred to have to be met first, and met out of public funds, if necessary, and after that, the household is to be guaranteed an income of 16s: a unit for food and clothing. In cases where the pre-Service standard was above the minimum level—we are not going to rule out those people who are entitled to more than 16s., but simply say that 16s. shall be the absolute minimum—we can take the amount up to 20s. a unit without there being any reduction whatever. But I submit that in the case of any income over the 20s. unit, we have a right, in these very difficult times, to ask those people to make some little sacrifice. Beyond the 20s. unit, it is suggested in the White Paper that there should be a graduated basis that can take the amount up to a certain figure which I will announce in a moment.
In passing, let me say that pre-Service basic wages are adjusted or loaded to allow for prospective increases in wages. This is a very important matter. There are some men who joined up in the early days of the war and at that time were working in certain jobs in which the standard rate of wages has now gone up. If a man comes into the Services from the same occupation now, he has, of course, a higher standard to present to us. Therefore, there would be the anomaly of two men who were working at the same job and now that they are in the Army, one would get a little more than the other in the way of allowances because he happened to have been left in civil life longer than the other. To meet this situation, we intend to take into account what may be termed prospective increases in wages. For instance, take the case of an apprentice who came into the Army at 20 years of age. If he had stayed in civil life until he was 21, he would have been getting either an improver's wages or the full scale of wages. In such a case, we shall take, not the apprentice's wages but the wages he would have been getting if he


had remained in civil life, as a basis for arriving at the pre-Service income.
I found that it would be utterly impossible to do these things if we maintained the £2 maximum grant, as laid down two years ago. So I requested the Government—and they have expressed agreement—to raise the figure from £2 to £3, and I am now in the position where, if it can be shown to be justified, I can make a grant up to £3 a week. I want to make it clear that we want the officer class to apply for these grants. In the past, we have had very few applications from officers. I have been told it is because in some cases they have been discouraged from making these applications, or it may be they have thought this was something in the nature of charity—which is entirely wrong. I hope we shall get claims from the officers as well as from the ranks. I submit to the House that the more we can make these things known throughout the country, the better it will be for the serving men and their wives and families.
Let me give a further illustration to that given in the White Paper of how the scheme will work in practice. In the illustration in the White Paper, it is shown that a wife with two children will have 32s. a week for maintenance after meeting all the reasonable commitments to which I have referred. There are cases which, I think, give a better illustration than that of the scheme, and one came to my notice only this week. A woman with six children made an application for a war service grant. Before joining the Forces, her husband had not had a regular job for years, but had been in intermittent employment, and therefore, the pre-Service income of the household was exceedingly small. It was about 5s 9d. to 6s. a unit per week after meeting other commitments, which I am sure all hon. Members will agree was far too low for that family to live on. This woman put forward a claim and made this statement. She was drawing altogether from the Services £2 14s. a week; that is, her own allowance, plus the children's allowances; and the expenses for rent, rates and so on, came to about £1 a week, leaving her with £1 14s. with which to keep herself and six children in food and clothing. Under the old system, we could not give her a war service grant, because, even

with all the loading in the world, we could not bring the unit figure down to the figure shown in the pre-Service period. It was a very unfortunate case, and it is, of course, one of the cases that impressed me very much when considering what we could do under this scheme. Under the new scheme, this is what will happen in her case. She is guaranteed a minimum standard of 16s. a unit after commitments have been met, so that altogether she will receive for herself and six children a guaranteed sum of £3 4s. a week after all commitments have been met—that is to say, her allowance from the Army, plus the allowance we shall make. She will be sure of £3 4s. a week in addition to the amount of money required to meet her commitments. I think hon. Members will see from that illustration how we shall be able to benefit many families throughout the country.
I know it has been stated that the War Service Grants Committee have in the past given as much as 16s. a unit and 25s. a unit. This has not been a minimum standard or a standard of any kind. That has come about from the fact that the pre-Service income showed that higher figure and therefore even under the old system we could grant a higher figure. This is a decided improvement. Poorer families will benefit considerably, and even those not quite so poor will get a benefit out of the new arrangement in comparison between the pre-Service and the in-Service income. But that was not enough. I realised that there were many other things that crop up in addition to the ordinary commitments and the mere provision of food and clothing, and I gathered from the records of my Department what some of the hardships were. In the average working-class household the greatest disaster that can happen short of losing the breadwinner is the sickness that comes into the house. If the breadwinner is sick, instead of getting his full wages he is only getting sickness benefit, and there are extra costs of everything.
It means a good deal. A working-class family where the head of the household is in full employment and they have good health has a far better chance than those who have to contend with sickness in the household. I felt that I ought to have a provision in anything in the way of new regulations giving me the privilege of making an allowance where there is


sickness in the family, so we are going to allow up to a maximum of £10. We think that will cover it. I hope it will, but if it does not, I may have to come back and ask for more. We are not taking into account any expenditure of less than £2. The reason is that we do not want trivial claims, because that would make it almost impossible to carry on our work. We will accept the certificate of any doctor; we do not send our own doctor to inquire. If a doctor certifies that there is illness in the family, we shall take that as a guarantee that it is so and we shall pay out on it.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about trivial complaints, he does not understand the position. The child suffering from measles will not necessarily have a bill of as much as £2, but if it is 30s. it will be a tremendous handicap to a woman who has only 8s. a week for the child.

Sir W. Womersley: We can trust the medical profession to deal fairly and squarely with us. We have considered the matter very carefully, and that is the conclusion we have come to, and I think it is a fair one. We also find that another thing that creates hardship is where there is a death in the family, so I have arranged that we shall make a payment up to £7 10s., which is the normal Government funeral grant. If a child is dead or if it is a case of a woman, we make the grant just the sane. We shall deal with these applications for sickness or death payments through our local officers. I will make an announcement about the procedure very shortly. As regards dependants, I have mentioned the childless wife who finds herself going to have a child, and we make that alteration for her, but in the case where she is unfit for work by reason of age or infirmity, we shall then put her on the highest scale, and she will get the benefit of this new arrangement.
I will now announce what we are going to do as regards dependent parents and other dependants. Improvements were made earlier in the year in the method of assessing allowances to the dependants of unmarried men. We took into account the provisions of the Determination of Needs Act and will operate under that. I want to supplement that by giving the

benefit of these new arrangements in the case of solely dependent parents. That is the term used in the White Paper. "Parent" there means parents, so it is parent or parents, when the serving man was the breadwinner of the house. A widowed mother with an only son qualified in the same way as his wife would do if he were married. I think that is a reasonable and fair way of dealing with a dependent mother. These changes will relieve the man of a great deal of anxiety about his family. I have been told by many serving soldiers that the question of an increase of pay is not one that has been exercising their minds very much. What has been exercising their minds undoubtedly has been when they have had letters from wives and dependants telling them of the difficulties they are having to face. The woman I have mentioned would have a perfect right to complain that she was not having sufficient to carry on the household, and that is the thing that has made so many men feel disgruntled and disheartened when they have been long away from their families and cannot go and help them.
I am certain that taking that burden off their shoulders is something which the men will regard as of value. Under the old system if a man had an increase of pay because of promotion that was taken into account in calculating his in-service income, and many men who have been serving and have worked hard and got their proficiency certificates and increased pay did not object to its being passed on to the wife and family, but when they discovered that when it was passed on we made a similar deduction from the allowance the position was this, that the man was awarded proficiency pay, but did not get it. The wife got it, but lost a similar amount from the grant and so was no better off. There were many complaints on that score, and I can well understand it. What we have decided to do is this. The man will be allowed a fair share of the increased pay for his own pocket up to 4s. a day. We do not take anything into account until the man has more than 4s. a day. Over 4s. a day four-sevenths of the increase goes to his family, and he keeps three-sevenths for his own pocket. To give an example, a man is paid 3s. 9d. a day, 2s. is allotted to the family, and he keeps 1s. 9d. A man with 5s. 9d. a day with a qualifying allotment of 2s. would keep 2s. 9d. for himself. He


will have his 4s. a day less his original allotment, and we shall not take any account of that in calculating the grant to his family.
I am authorised to state, on behalf of the Government, that the matter of travelling warrants has received a good deal of attention, because there has been a good deal of complaint. Up to the present a man was allowed two free travelling warrants a year. If he went on leave on any other occasion he had to pay the fare himself, though it was a reduced fare. It was double journey for a single fare. That meant that if a man was serving in the North of Scotland with his home in the Midlands a single fare would come to £4 10s.; if he lived in the South of England it would be considerably more. He was faced with this: If he had seven days' leave, he could either spend it where he was stationed or pay out of his own pocket and go to see his wife and family. These men had not got the money so a system grew up whereby they were advanced the money, and after they came back for a considerable time so much was deducted from the pay each week and they were left with very little spending money. The Government have agreed to this. In future a man may have a free railway warrant in addition to a free warrant for embarkation leave whenever he goes home on privilege leave so that if he takes his leave in four periods, he will get four free warrants instead of two, which is the general rule at present. That is the Government decision, and I am glad to have the privilege of announcing it, because I have been an advocate of this for a long time.
I may be asked about the cost of these improvements. No exact estimate can be made. The present cost of war service grants is about £5,500,000 a year. I have had careful calculations made, and we can expect that to go up by another £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 on account of these concessions. I hope we shall have a good 'deal of publicity, so that the wives and families and dependants and the serving men themselves will know all about the scheme. We want them to apply. We do not want to make the concession and get no applications. We shall try to get the newspapers to help us, and I am going to broadcast to-night. I want to get as many people to know

about it as possible. I am expecting that as the result of this wider publicity we shall have claims coming in, claims which could have come in before had the men known about it. I am putting down £2,000,000 on top of the estimate that I have given to deal with the extra cost which I am hoping will come in because of this publicity. That will amount to £13,500,000, and I hope the Horse will not refuse me that grant.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What number does the £5,500,000 cover?

Sir W. Womersley: About 350,000 cases. The cost for the extra travelling warrants will be £5,500,000. All the changes in war service grants date from the first pay-day in November.
I now come to the question of how I will deal with this matter. No applications will be needed for the cases that have already been dealt with. They will be dealt with automatically by my Department without application. I hope that hon. Members will make it known to their constituents that those who are drawing war service grants need not apply again. We shall deal with their cases and readjust the grants due straight away. If we get a lot of correspondence about the cases already on our books it will clog the machinery, and I want to keep the machinery running smoothly in the next few weeks in order to tackle one of the biggest jobs which a Minister has had to tackle for a long time.

Captain Strickland: I am not clear with regard to cases that have been submitted and rejected—

Sir W. Womersley: If hon. Members will give me a chance I will deal with all the points. Cases where applications have been rejected because the pre-war service was not long enough to qualify for a grant will be reviewed and no fresh applications will be necessary.

Mr. Mathers: Does that apply to the cases of pensions for dependent parents which have been refused?

Sir W. Womersley: We are not discussing pensions to-day. We are discussing allowances to the families and dependants of those serving in the Forces. With regard to the remaining cases, I realise that that is where we shall have some little difficulty. We will try


what publicity can do. The form of applications will be available in all the Assistance Board offices in the country.

Mr. Buchanan: Why not the post offices?

Sir W. Womersley: Because the Post Office have told us that they cannot undertake it. They are over-pressed now, and we are trying to make the best of the circumstances that prevail. I should like to have the forms distributed through many agencies, but if the Post Office are not willing to undertake the work I cannot make them.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Assistance Board offices are established only in the very large villages and towns? There are thousands of villages from which women will have to journey to the nearest town to get a form from the Assistance Board officers. Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this and make the forms available at the Post Offices?

Sir W. Womersley: We expect the man himself to make the application if he is serving in this country and he can get a form from his commanding officer. Supplies are being sent to all commanding officers, and if we hear of cases where they have not had them we take them up immediately. We have had no complaints from the Navy or the Air Force, hut at one time there were complaints that men could not get the forms in the Army. If the men will apply there will be no need for his dependants to go to the Assistance Board office. Officers in the Army will make it as easy as possible for men to put in their claims. I hope that the War Office will issue an instruction to that effect. That will dispose of a tremendous number of applications. There will, of course, be applications which must of necessity come from the woman. Her husband may be serving abroad or, what is surprising in these days, the man will not bother to apply. We do not say to the woman, "Because your husband has applied and you have applied we shall not complain about having a duplicate application," although we want to avoid duplicate applications as much as possible. I will consider any other method of getting these forms into the hands of the people concerned. The Post Office is definitely ruled out. I

agree that the Assistance Board offices are not in every little village but if a woman asks the Post Office for the address of the nearest Assistance Board office, which they will supply, she can drop 3 postcard to the Assistance Board office and they will send a form of application by return. She need not, therefore, make a long journey.

Mr. Bellenger: Will my right hon. Friend make one more effort with the Post Office? At the present time, for Army dependants' allowances people can go to the Post Office and ask for the notes for the guidance of applicants and get application forms. The right hon. Gentleman's present proposal, therefore, will create one more anomaly. If the Post Office can deal with application forms for dependants' allowances, why cannot they deal with war service grants?

Sir W. Womersley: We will have another try if you like. May I make a correction before I go further. I have had a note passed to me stating that in the case of rejected claims it will create a good deal of difficulty to re-open them without applications. It will, therefore, be necessary for an application to be sent in in every case of a rejected claim. I was hoping that we would be able to deal with those claims from our files, but apparently that would be so big a job that it would be better for new claims to be sent in.

Mr. Buchanan: If the Post Office fails, could not the Department see whether other local agencies could be substituted? We have in our city registry offices for births, marriages and deaths. They are very accessible and central. The food offices might also be used. In my city the Assistance Board offices will be useful, but they do not always cover every area, particularly the new housing schemes.

Captain Strickland: Would it not be possible to obviate man-handling these forms by having them available in a box in the Post Office so that people can help themselves?

Sir W. Womersley: I am willing to look into points of that kind. I am anxious that no family in this country whose breadwinner is serving suffers because it did not know about the scheme. I want them to know about it, and I want it to


be made as easy as possible for them to make their applications and to be assisted to fill up the forms. Although this form has been made as simple as possible in the circumstances there are still people to whom it presents difficulties, and the Assistance Board have volunteered to help them, and it is very good of them to do so, and it is one of the advantages of letting them go to the Assistance Board. On the other hand, there are throughout the country what are known as citizens' advice bureaux. It may be, also, that some local authorities may be prepared to allow some of their officials to assist in this work. I am open to consider any suggestion. All that I am anxious to do is to see that those who have a claim can send it through to the proper quarter and that it is dealt with in the proper way. We want everybody to apply and to feel that cases will be considered fairly and squarely.
I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this Debate, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, be able to reply to any points which they put forward. All I would say in conclusion is that I want to make it clear to the House and to the country at large, and especially to the men in the Services, that this war service grant is not a charity. I want any idea of its being a charity to be swept clean out of the minds of the men who are serving. The men are as much entitled to a grant as to the ordinary Service allowances. I want to stress that point particularly as regards officers. They should realise that it is not a charity, but their right. It has been given to them as a right, and they ought to apply and get whatever benefits they can from this scheme. A committee on which some Members of this House have served have devoted a good deal of time to the work of dealing with war service grants under the old regulations, cramped and confined as they were. They have attended two mornings a week, which has been a great sacrifice on the part of busy Members of Parliament, and I wish to thank them for the work they have done. From time to time they have made suggestions to me, and many of them have been embodied in this new scheme.
Finally, let me say that after giving the most serious consideration to the best way of meeting the difficulties arising in

connection with the families and the dependants of serving men I am satisfied that this is the only way whereby we can be sure that no family of a serving man shall suffer any hardship. If any other way can be suggested I shall be glad to consider it, because my one and only object is to do something for the men who are serving. We are all proud of them; most of us have members of our own families serving. We think of the conditions in the last war and of the men we knew then., and we want to feel that the anxieties which men suffered then have been lifted from their minds, and that the soldiers of to-day can go on with their jobs without worrying over possible distress in their homes. May I say, lastly, that women in the Services are on terms of equality with the men in respect of grants under this scheme.

Major Milner: The right hon. Gentleman always impresses the House by his sympathetic treatment of his subject and his evident desire to do what he can to help, and we are grateful to him for his exposition of the situation and of the White Paper, and particularly for the little bit of sugar he gave us almost at the end of his speech when he announced the four free warrants per year, a concession which will be generally and whole-heartedly approved. But this is an occasion when, whatever the consequences, one must be perfectly frank, and I shall say at once that I am really very sorry for the Minister of Pensions. In tackling this tremendous job he has been handed the baby to hold by the real culprits, who are the Service Departments. It is a very unhealthy and sick baby, suffering from a great many complications.

Mr. Gallacher: Malnutrition.

Major Milner: And the complications are the result of many years of gross neglect on the part of these Departments, principally the War Office. We ought to have the Secretary of State for War present here. I did notice the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but he is not with us now, but let it be clear that this question is primarily the responsibility of the Service Departments. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to administer the scheme, but the responsibility remains where it was.

Major Haden Guest: On a point of Order. Can we not have in the House a representative of the War Office upon this extremely important matter? It is important that we should have representatives of the War Office and of the other Services.

Major Milner: The situation regarding pay and allowances is already one almost of chaos. The present system has grown up little by little throughout the years, and it has permutations and combinations of almost infinite variety. A senior wrangler would have great difficulty in unravelling some of them. Thousands of officers and men are engaged day by day and possibly night by night, in the War Office in the various paymasters' offices and in regimental and company offices, as well as in the Department of the right hon. Gentleman, in wrestling with the situation which has resulted from the way in which the Service Departments have dealt in the past with these great human questions upon which our lives and fortunes may depend. The truth is that throughout the Service Departments have been trying to run the Services, and particularly the Army, on the cheap.
Now, instead of being presented with a straighforward scheme, we have another piece of patchwork. I do not say this as a reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman. It is the fourth such scheme which has been offered to us since the war began, and the second or third since the present Government came into office, and it is put forward to satisfy a very pressing demand which has given rise to a good deal of discontent of a substantial character. The proposal is to effect an enormous extension of the activities of the War Service Grants Committee. The Committee will reassess the position in regard to pay and allowances of almost every man and woman in His Majesty's Forces, and will supplement those payments on the basis of providing a minimum standard of maintenance. Firstly an amount in respect of reasonable commitments will be put on one side. Incidentally I always think the word "reasonable" in a White Paper, as in a legal document, a very ambiguous one.

Major Guest: My hon. and gallant Friend must not forget "etc.," which makes the position quite clear.

Major Milner: Then, as I understand it, that figure will be deducted, for purposes of calculation, from the allowance paid to the dependant, and a sum will then be added to the resultant balance, so as to leave that dependant with full commitments paid and a surplus of 16s., in the case of an adult, and 8s. in the case of a child of school age. That is the final figure which will be available to pay for food, clothing, household requirements, recreation and all the other necessities ox the house and family. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that over and above school age the adult rate would be paid—a very necessary thing.
Then the necessity for not going above the pre-Service standard will be done away with, and the maximum will be increased to £3. Grants, by way of supplementation in respect of serious and prolonged illness, will be available up to a sum of £10. It may be that many people pay their doctor when he sends his bill in respect of a particular illness, but I am sure that the great majority of the working people pay so much a week. The right hon. Gentleman should give his attention to this aspect of the matter. Doctors are not paid by the working class so much per illness, and the formula in the White Paper ought to be altered in this respect so as to cover periodical payments if possible in all cases without restriction. There is a further concession in respect of proficiency and promotion pay. Then there is the question of the solely dependent parent or parents. The White Paper says "parent." but I understand the word should be "parents." These are also to have the benefit of the arrangement regarding a unit figure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will direct his special attention to this particular matter, which is an important one and a frequent source of difficulty. All these provisions in the White Paper make a patchwork and partial improvement but are subject to too many "buts," too many "mays" and not enough "wills"; but they will undoubtedly result in substantial improvement in hard cases.
But what will the scheme involve? Every Service man or his wife will have to fill up forms, and in every case there will have to be an investigation. This will be carried out by an Assistance


Board officer, in the case of the men, and by gentlemen specially appointed, in the case of officers. That is an invidious distinction between officers and rankers which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to remove.

Captain Duncan: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain the arrangements which the Ministry of Pensions are making for investigation, and which will give rise to the distinction between officers and men?

Major Milner: I understand that in every case there will be an investigation by Assistance Board officers for men in the ranks, who will go and check the particulars which appear on the men's forms. I understand that in the case of officers it is not a matter for the Assistance Board investigator, but for some specially appointed inquiry officer from the Minister's Department.

Mr. Molson: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman where he got that information from?

Major Milner: The Minister is here to speak for himself. That system is in force at present. It has been running for years. Your scheme is going to involve a fresh form to fill in for every change of circumstances, and probably again every six months or so, when again the same visit from the investigating officer will take place. This will be almost a continuous process throughout the years, of form-filling, investigating, checking-up and assessing, throughout the whole time that men and women are serving in the Forces—an intolerable burden. How many men and women are there in our Armed Forces? I do not know. But I will take what is probably a very moderate figure indeed, say, 2,500,000. In two and a half years the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with, up to date, 300,000 cases, and under the existing system he is getting new cases in at the rate of 20,000 a week. Yet he proposes to assume this great additional responsibility of dealing with another 2,000,000 or 2,500,000. Think of the position of all these soldiers and their womenfolk filling in the eternal form. And, of course, my right hon. Friend will not think I am referring to him when I say that it is ridiculous and absurd on the part of the Post Office to say that they

cannot have a stock of those forms at the back of the counter or that some other Government office should not have them instead of the U.A.B. Which of my hon. and gallant Friends in this House, if he puts in a claim, as he may well do, because it will be a common form in the future, is going to send or go to the Assistance Board to get a form? The form ought clearly to be available elsewhere.
Think of the visits that will be made by these investigating officers; think of the process of checking and assessing, the amount of paper that will be used, the tremendous staff that will be required under this scheme. And when all is done there will still be differentiation, discrepancy, inequality and continued dissatisfaction. The single man with no dependants will still have 17s. 6d. for himself, while the married man, perhaps twice the single man's age or old enough to be his father, will have only 10s. 6d., while serving alongside him, because from his 17s. 6d. he will have to make an allotment of 7s. to his wife. The munition worker or civilian worker will still be far better paid and his family better fed and clothed than the soldier's wife and family can hope to be. And still there will be men from Canada, Australia and New Zealand fighting alongside our men but drawing twice and in some cases three times as much.
Further, in my submission, this scheme may have—I use the word "may" advisedly—quite disastrous social effects. The best of our manhood and womanhood are in the Forces; they will become what I term without offence dole-minded and spend a large proportion of their time billing up forms on which will depend the amount they will draw from the public purse. Is it really worth while to embark upon this grandiose scheme? What are we really seeking to do? What is, or what should be, our object? This war may and probably will last some years. We must take a long-term view. Surely oar object should be to pay an adequate and sufficient wage to our fighting men and the women in the Services and to pay an adequate and sufficient dependants' allowance to their nearest and dearest. There will then be fair payment for services rendered and the dependants will be able to keep up a decent standard of


life and the serving men will have peace of mind and there will be at any rate some semblance of equity as between the soldier and the civilian worker.
The House may ask how it is to be done. In my personal opinion, it should be done without all this paraphernalia by paying a proper sum by way of pay and allowances respectively, without any form-filling, means test, or inquisition of the nature that has been indicated. Many of us on this side of the House believe, and I myself believe, that the right course is to do away with allotments altogether. They are an anachronism and were intended for entirely different circumstances. We should do away with compulsory allotments altogether, although a man should be allowed to make a voluntary allotment. We should do away with all these questions of employers' subventions which are largely paid by the Government in the last resort. At any rate they should not be taken into account, as of course they will be taken into account under this scheme. Further, we should pay what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour calls "the rate for the job". What should that rate be? That is a very difficult question, in regard to which, particularly in the present circumstances of financial difficulty, there may be a variety of opinions.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of having taken advice; he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is probably working on the British Medical Association scale. My hon. Friends who are members if the medical profession will be able to fell the House the precise position, but I believe that this is little if any more than a bare subsistence scale. Now my scale is also an absolute minimum. I would suggest that every man should receive for himself 17s. 6d., which is the amount a single man receives for himself at present. If there were no allotments that would have the effect of putting the married man and the single man on the same basis. Then I would pay a minimum of 30s. to the wife and a minimum of 10s. for each child. If J had ray own way, I would make the children's allowance more still, even 15s., because I think that that is where an increase ought to be made, to the woman with young children. In passing, I may remark that the Trades Union Congress asked for 40s. for the wife and that the Government already pay 10s. 6d. for the billeting of one child.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman also notice that the Trades Union Congress advocated an increase of the basic rate to 3s. per day?

Major Milner: Yes, they did, and let me say quite frankly that the Trades Union Congress figures would be a proper rate in normal circumstances and should even be increased in regard to children. We are not, however, working in normal circumstances now. Over and above what I have suggested, there should still be the War Service Grants Committee as at present. It should, however, operate on a much more generous basis, with its powers largely extended along the line put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. But having regard to the effect of these substantial increases in the basic allowances, I submit that that committee would then have comparatively few cases to deal with and that far less labour, less paper and less investigation would be involved. The great majority of serving soldiers and their relatives world know exactly where they were, but special problems of hardship would be dealt with but would be kept within quite small dimensions.
I do not want to take up too long a time, and I do want to put forward one or two comparative figures, to show how the scales compare—the present scale, the Government's new scale and the suggestion of a flat-rate increase which I have made. Take the case of a wife and two children. At present the wife would receive for herself and them 38s. a week. Assume that her commitments are £1 per week, the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman in the example he gave. When she has put on one side £1 for her commitments she has only the sum of 18s. on which to keep herself and the two children, a scandalously low figure, in my submission. I notice that we now have present a representative of the War Office and a representative of the Admiralty, and I hope they will take note of what I say—a scandalously low figure. Under the new scale, instead of having 38s. a week, a wife with two children would receive £2 12s. She would put on one side £1 in respect of fixed commitments and would then have £1 12s. on which to keep herself and the children instead of 18s., a very substantial increase of 14s. Under the suggestion I


have made which, I would remind the House, does not involve any allotment from the husband and is still an absolute minimum, the wife would have £2 10s., and, after payment of fixed commitments, would be left with £1 10s., or 2s. less than the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. But the husband is making no compulsory allotment. If that allotment was continued or if he cares to make a voluntary allotment, as most of them would wish to do, and made the usual allotment of 7s., then his wife and children would be 5s. better off per week than under the Government's scheme. I could give similar comparisons in other cases, but I will forbear. In my submission it would be clearly an advantage to make a direct straightforward payment to the man for his work, and a direct and sufficient allowance to the wife for the upkeep of herself and the two children. That, in my view, is the way to deal with the situation.
In the moment or two longer for which I propose to detain the House I would like to answer the contentions which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward and which no doubt he or the Parliamentary Secretary will put forward again when replying to this Debate. What will the Government's answer be to the suggestion I have made? They will say that the scheme would cost too much. The Government wish, quite rightly, to give the relief where it is most needed. They will also say that they do not want to give any more to the childless wife who can go out to work. I say that we cannot stagger on as we are doing bringing every six or nine months patchwork schemes of this sort in our present situation. There is no more fruitful ground for discontent and unrest than this kind of thing. I say further that the cost of a proper wage for the man and proper allowances for his wife and family has got to be met, and that adequate and sufficient pay to the soldier, and the provision of an adequate and sufficient allowance to his dependants without any means test, should be the first charge on our finances. With regard to the childless wife, if we want her to go to work let us direct her to do so and not compel her to do so by giving her a sum on which she cannot exist, and which is insufficient to keep her in decency unless she goes to work. There are many

other points with which I have not dealt. The White Paper is really very vague and unsatisfactory in its language, and I hope other Members will deal with some of the many points which I have omitted and which require to be cleared up.
Finally, the question is, What course are we to adopt in present circumstances? The Government have presented this White Paper to the House. If times were normal I should wholeheartedly oppose it. It has only one virtue; it establishes a minimum standard, but it will also bring about a nation of dole-minded people. But, as I have said, times are not normal. We have to pull together in the common cause. The White Paper is a great improvement on the present situation, but merely, I would emphasise, because the present situation is so scandalously bad to begin with—for no other reason. Again we cannot afford delay, and we cannot indulge in undue argument on an issue like this. At the same time I desire to make it clear that I am frankly dissatisfied with the proposed scheme and its underlying spirit. But this is no doubt the first of many occasions on which we shall discuss this subject. In present circumstances, and in the hope that the Government will consider what has been said in this House and elsewhere, I am prepared, for myself— and I hope my hon. Friends will take the same view—to accept the scheme as an interim one and to give it a trial. But I hope that the Government will see their way to examine this whole question with a view to a complete change in their attitude to what is an extremely serious and important matter, for it is a matter which very closely affects the homes and fortunes of our country and people.

Mr. Crowder: May I thank the Government for giving us an opportunity of discussing this most important matter of pay and allowances of the men in the Services? I congratulate the Minister of Pensions on having been able to get the necessary concession from the Treasury so that he could put forward this White Paper, which, I am sure, as the last speaker has just said, will help a good deal in regard to the many hard cases. But unless he is able to speed up the machinery, I feel that we shall not be so much better off in the long run. First, I should like to deal with the question of the pay of the lowest-paid man in the


Army, which, as Members know, is 2s. a day plus 6d. a day war pay—that is, 17s. 6d. a week. I do not wish to deal with the basic pay but with what a man actually receives at the pay table on Friday. A single man probably receives about 15s. a week in cash, because 6d. is generally deducted for barrack damages, and up to now in many units 2s. or 2S. 6d. has been kept as a reserve to enable the man to buy a railway ticket for leave for which free warrants have not been issued.
I am very glad that the Minister of Pensions has, at last, after so many months, been able to get the Treasury to agree to issue four free warrants, because now the men will be better off by at least 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week. When we come to the married man, he has his allotment to make of 7s. a week, so that he probably only draws 8s. a week at the pay table, which, I think Members will agree, is not sufficient. Now he may get 10s. with the four free railway warrants. I deprecate this large difference between single and married men. I am not prepared to go quite as far as the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), but I have another scheme to put forward. There is considerable variation, of course, in what a man requires for himself. It depends to a large extent on where he is quartered. If he is in a big town his needs are different from what they would be if he were in an out-of-the-way post in the country. But, broadly speaking, I suggest that the lowest-paid soldier should have 14s. or 15s. to put in his pocket every week, whether he is married or single. I think that hon. Members will agree that the bare minimum expenditure for incidentals like stamps, blanco, soap, polish, razor blades and matches, when he can get them, comes to about 1s. 9d. a week.

Mr. Molson: Since the hon. Member is making a point about the actual pay received, will he bear in mind that each soldier receives 3d. a day for each completed year of service?

Mr. Crowder: Yes, that is so; but I said "the lowest-paid soldier"—not one receiving proficiency pay. My suggestion is that this could be improved if the Government would increase the allowance to the wife by 7s. a week. At present the soldier's wife with no children gets 18s. a week plus the 7s. qualifying allotment

from the soldier. Under my proposal, the wife would receive 28s. 6d. a week in all—25s. from the Government and only 3s. 6d. from the man. A similar reduction, I suggest, should take place in the qualifying allotment when the man has his pay increased on being promoted. My suggestion is that the qualifying allotment of all N.C.O.'s and men should be reduced by 3s. 6d. a week, and the allowance from the Government to the wife should be increased by 7s. a week. I am glad that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Molson) made the point about the proficiency pay. The whole of that amount is now taken by the Government and given to the wife. I think perhaps half of it should be given to the wife, but certainly some of it should be allowed to stay in the man's own pocket.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he cannot find this extra money for the men in the Services without resorting to inflation, my answer is that the Government should tackle the whole question of wages, bonuses, overtime, danger money and the like, especially to unskilled workers. The Minister of Labour seems unwilling to tackle this question, although cases have been brought to his notice on several occasions. In a recent speech he said that he did not mind what the workers earned so long as they are producing the goods. I know what he meant, but you can hardly expect the Service man to accept such a statement. He says, "Where do we come in? We are risking our lives on active service." With practically every necessity rationed, through the coupon system, I do not see why inflation should occur on a large scale. In any case, I do not see why Service men should suffer because so much money is being poured out, some of it extravagantly, on Government work. Cannot the Minister of Labour and the Chancellor of the Exchequer get together, agree upon what they can afford, pool our resources and then make a more equitable distribution as between the Service man and the skilled and the unskilled civilian. Only last week the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) stated that there are many cases of men doing unskilled work earning more than skilled men in the same factories. The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) also alluded last week to cases of gross extravagance. It seems extraordinary that the Treasury have voluntarily agreed


to make up the pay of civil servants who join the Services. Obviously, they think the War Office scales are too low. If one Government Department does not agree with another, it is time for some further inquiry into the question.
I would ask the Government to have a discussion with the Dominion Governments on how they pay their men. They will find that both married and single are paid the same amount—they get between 19 and 20 dollars a month—and then there is another 20 dollars which the man may allot to his wife or other dependant. If he has no dependant this money is kept for him until after the war. I do not say that we can go as far as that—exchange and other difficulties arise—but the Government should consult with the Dominion Governments and find out how their schemes are worked. I submit that the Pay Branch of the War Office requires reorganisation. At present it is trying to work a peace-time system, in spite of the fact that there are now hundreds of thousands more men in the Army. This practice of the regimental paymaster notifying the unit that a man is overdrawn or in debt, sometimes for a large sum, is. unfair, especially as a man has often no idea of how the debt was incurred. I suggest that a staff officer of the Pay Corps should be attached to every corps, division or area with power to deal with such cases. When a debtor balance has arisen, through no fault of the soldier, the paymaster should, as a rule, write off the debt at his own discretion. Only last week I was told by a constituent of a man who had been overpaid 2s. a day early in 1940. Now he is £20 in debt, through no fault of his own. I hope the War Office will try to meet some of these grievances and hardships. If a private employer overpaid his men and then told them three months after that they were £20 in debt, their union would have something to say about it. But the soldier has to accept an immediate reduction in pay, and sometimes has to wait for months before a final adjustment is made.
As a representative of the War Office is present, I ask him to go into the question of unpaid acting N.C.O.s. In many training regiments holding battalions I believe, although the intake of men has increased, the number of N.C.O.s on the

establishment has not been altered in any way. As a result, hundreds of men in this country are doing the work and taking the extra responsibility of N.C.O.s, but are not getting the extra pay. This matter has been brought up on many occasions, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office will see what can be done. I do not think that hon. Members are satisfied with the improvements in pay and allowances for married officers under 30. Unless something is done to help them further, the War Office, I think, will have great difficulty in getting such men to take commissions.
I will not go into all the complications of dependants' allowances. In this connection I am not referring to wives but to widowed mothers and other dependants, and I would like to put forward to the War Office and the Treasury that, provided a soldier was substantially maintaining a dependant before the war, the Government should give the same grant as that given to the wife, plus the man's qualifying allotment. Dependants should be treated in the same way as wives as regards the Government allowance. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken suggested something on these lines. There are many widows in this country who lost their husbands in the last war and who have sons serving in this war, and they have been living, or trying to exist, some of them in my constituency, below the poverty line. I think that they will be in a better position now that the Minister of Pensions has issued his new regulations. I know that they can go before the hardship committees, but I suggest that they ought to be treated in the same way as wives and not have to fill up all sorts of forms.
Generally speaking, some degree of elasticity should be permitted to the various branches concerned with pay and allowances. At present there can be no departure from the strict letter of the regulations. There are many border-line cases, and some are treated unfairly through the rigidity of the regulations. I would like to add a few sentences about the War Service Grants Committee. The London Council for Social Service recently informed me that in reviewing some thousands of cases, the indication throughout all the investigations was that the special grant did not permit dependants to


live above the poverty-line, and reports from welfare centres confirmed the fact that under-nourishment was frequently being suffered by the wives and children of men in the Forces. I have heard it said that wives would have been better off under public assistance. I feel sure that now my right hon. Friend has this matter in hand he will see that it does not occur in the future.
As regards the machinery of the working of the War Service Grants Committee, I understand that the Assistance Board's officers make preliminary investigations for that Committee. These men are well accustomed to estimating the cost of living and so forth in a family. I suggest that they should not only set forth facts in each individual case but should put forward recommendations to the Committee as to the amount of grant needed to enable the family to live upon a decent scale. I suggest also that before any financial deduction or change is made in the war service grant through a man being promoted or through some other cause, such as the wife or mother removing to cheaper premises, another investigation should be made by the Board's officers, who should act as liaison officers between the Committee and the family. What happens now is that a reduction is made and a Member of Parliament has to find out the reason why, and a lot of unnecessary correspondence takes place. If the Board's officer would explain the position to a wife, I feel that a lot of trouble would be avoided. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the suggestions which have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds and myself, because they must act quickly now with the winter coming on. We have been—and I think all Members will agree—very patient with regard to this question of pay and allowances, and we really cannot be put off any longer with delays. There is the question of field allowances, which was raised last April. We are told it is still under consideration, and I hope that the War Office will get the Treasury to make up their minds and come to some decision.
In conclusion, I suggest that there are four points which we should bear in mind when discussing this very important problem of pay and allowances. Many of the men in the Services have given up

good wages and good positions. They read constantly in the Press of cases of astronomical wages being paid in industry sometimes to boys of 19. They have not forgotten that after the last war it was said that these inequalities would not occur again, and yet they see them on every side. The Service man is prepared to give his life, and he will cheerfully undergo any hardship provided he knows that his wife and family are all right and he has a certain amount of money in his pocket to enjoy a little relaxation when that is possible at the cinema or in the NAAFI, or to be able to buy a pint of beer which is now double in price. It is up to us in Parliament to put the case of the ex-Service man to the Government whenever an opportunity like this occurs, because he cannot write to the Press and take up the matter himself. It is our duty to do it, difficult though it may be. In all sincerity, I suggest that these cases are not few in number, and I hope that the Government will respond and do something on the lines I have suggested. As a party, we have always supported the Service Ministers when they have asked for larger and larger Estimates, because we have realised that a well-equipped, well-trained, contented and fairly paid Army was essential for our existence. I ask them now to realise that the position in some cases, especially for the lowest-paid men, is serious and to face up to the position which has never, in my opinion, been more unjust than it is today.

Mr. Viant: As there is a large number of speakers on this subject, I shall detain the House for only a short time. I have done my utmost to try to estimate the value of this White Paper to the men who are in the Services and their dependants. It is true that we have moved a considerable distance with regard to the improvements that have been attempted since, on behalf of my party, I initiated the first Debate on this subject in the House about 18 months ago. The position then was scandalous, but I am by no means satisfied with the present suggestions. My chief objection is that we are not approaching the problem from the right angle. The party with which I have been associated almost from its inception have always been opposed to what we call the method of charity organisation. It appears to me that whoever


is responsible for these proposals has approached the problem in exactly the same spirit as though we were to hand out charity to the wives and the dependants of the serving men. None of us for a moment can entertain that point of view. Serving men and their dependants are entitled to a square deal, to the best that this country can give them.
When we contrast the position of this country with that of the Dominions, our methods of approach and offers of reward for services are simply parsimonious. There is no reason why it should be so. We are an older nation, with far greater resources to draw upon. So I hope no one will argue to-day that we are bound to pledge ourselves to the principles outlined in this White Paper because we are unable to afford anything better. I want to put this point. We have at the moment a differentiation between single men and married men. The basic allowance is 17s. 6d. per week from which is taken 7s. for allotment for the wife of the married man. Any man in barracks will tell you that it is not an uncommon thing for men to have to supplement their rations from their own purse. A single man can afford to do so, but consider the position of the married man. He is put at a considerable disadvantage. Here I want to stress the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) when he suggested that there should be no differentiation between a married man and a single man, in so far as allotment should not be taken from his basic wage but should be made good by the Government.
The next point I want to make is this. Consider for a moment the cost of the machinery that will have to be set up in order to conduct the investigation that is essential as the result of the White Paper's principles. I know of nothing more abhorrent to the average working-class wife than that an inspector should have to visit her house for the purpose of making an investigation. We want to carry the confidence of the whole nation with us throughout this conflict, but these proposals are not likely to enable us to retain the confidence of the wives of serving men. It would be preferable—and I see no reason why it could not be done— to fix a decent basic rate for the wife and

dependants and dispense with all these investigations. I do not mind whether you accept a standard fixed by the British Medical Association, or some other standard, but let it be a standard that will guarantee a reasonable minimum By that means you could dispense with all this investigation, retain the confidence of the wives of our serving men, and, what is more important, put those who would be engaged in investigating these cases to work which would be far more economical from the point of view of the national interest at the present time. Remember this. One investigation will not suffice; investigations will have to be carried out at probably six monthly or 12 monthly periods. At any rate, they will have to be periodically carried out. Look at the labour entailed; it is a waste.
I hope these proposals will be reconsidered. Speaking candidly, were I in a position to vote against this new scheme in the House to-day I would do so in spite of it Being an improvement on the previous scheme. The scheme, as I have said, approaches the problem from the wrong angle and I am not interested at any time in voting for more of these investigations. The sooner we get rid of them the better. Whenever it comes to a question of wages or grants to members of the working class, the case has to be investigated, but if it happens to be a question of subsidies or grants for other sections of the community no investigations are necessary. It is entirely wrong and I hope those responsible for the scheme will reconsider it and give us a flat-rate, as has been suggested by the Trades Union Congress. They considered this subject for a long time and passed a resolution about it at their last meeting in Edinburgh. They are far more representative of Service men in many ways than some of us can claim to be. The majority of the T.U.C. representatives have sons in the Services and know what is happening in the homes of their sons. Therefore, I appeal to the Government, once again, to reconsider this scheme before it is enforced and put into operation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I intervene for a few moments in this Debate to voice a view which is, I believe, widely shared by serving officers and men. I must confess that the issue


of this White Paper, which some hon. Members may think has taken the sting out of this Debate and has silenced the clamour for better conditions of payment to members of our Forces, has, for me, only replaced that sting with a sharper barb and raised that clamour to a new pitch. To my mind the right hon. Gentleman has won a Pyrrhic victory. This White Paper is as unimaginative in its proposals as it is flimsy in texture. One gets the impression that the Service Departments and the Ministry of Pensions have fought with the Treasury for weeks, and have produced what? The poorest form of mouse, a grain of the coldest comfort. What is the background against which this problem has been considered? One of relieving hardship, of meeting want, of providing for an emergency. At the direction of the Treasury and I presume with the approval of this House, whole sections of our Fighting Services and their dependants are kept at what is practically subsistence level until, in response to an expression of public opinion, these concessions—and costive concessions they are, too—are produced. Do we raise the morale of our Fighting Services by proceeding on these principles? Assuredly we do not.
I would like to put a question to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to the Debate. Do these financial arrangements proceed from pre-war conceptions of limiting Service Department votes, of economising in expenditure in order to balance budgets, or do they result from decisions on high policy turning upon the wisdom or the unwisdom of members of the Forces having so much or so little money in their pockets? If the former, which I fear may be the case, it is a wholly ridiculous situation when you consider how and where money is flowing in other directions, and it represents an outworn technique which ought immediately to be abolished. If the latter, then at least we are in the right field and can debate the real issues. Within that framework, what ought we to do? We ought so to contrive that at the conclusion of this war a man or woman on demobilisation will, within a short space of time, be able to realise a capital sum with which to start again in civil life. Such a sum should be no less than that which is to-day being set aside week by week by those earning large sums in industry. By a system of deferred pay, scaled according

to rank, we ought to be able to achieve this.
We speak of total war and total sacrifice. Ought we not also to speak of total opportunity and total reward? As we are moving at present, we are not only—and this White Paper goes only a little way towards removing it—perpetuating a state of present grievance, but also creating a cause of future discontent. I do not complain of the wages which are being earned in industry, not of the growth of the numbers of skilled workers and the position which they are establishing for themselves in industry, a position which will run on into the peace. Nor, indeed, do I complain of the standard of living enjoyed by serving men themselves. But I do protest against the present status of their families in comparison with those of industrial workers, and I fear for the future prospects of these men who, with no financial background, will, unless something is done, be compelled to compete for jobs one day with their brothers and cousins who are not only more highly skilled and fixed firmly in the saddle, but also have capital saved as well. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to consider this problem most carefully, if they, have not already done so, and to let it be reflected shortly in another White Paper from a more inspired source and of happier effect.

Mr. Burke: This is a rationed Debate and I propose to keep very strictly to the period of about ten minutes which has been generally agreed to among hon. Members on this side of the House. All the speeches we have heard have been very critical of the White Paper, and have reflected the feelings which have for many months past found expression on all sides of the House in complaints about the inadequate pay of the soldier and the inadequate allowances to his dependants. That feeling has been very widespread throughout the country. The White Paper does not meet in any shape or form the needs of these people. After all, according to the Minister's statement—and the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—about 350,000 persons have applied to the War Service Grants Committee, and it is expected that a further £6,000,000 will be spent on those 350,000 persons. The Minister went on to say that a further sum of £2,000,000 will go to the extra people who may come


under the new scheme. This means that the right hon. Gentleman does not expect very many more people to come within the scheme, and if not many more come within the scheme, then the scheme will not have very widespread effects. On the other hand, if many more persons come within the scheme, as I suggest they will attempt to do, it will mean only a further £8,000,000. There is already being expended £5,500,000, and £8,000,000 more is to be expended. This is to meet the requirements of—one cannot give the number of men in the Services, but it is not a question of thousands or hundreds of thousands, but of millions. What does the expenditure of £8,000,000 more on them mean? Perhaps it means 10s. a year for a soldier and his family. That is not by any means enough to meet the case of the very lowly-paid dependants of soldiers and the very inadequately-paid soldiers themselves.
As to the method, it is just a continuation of the arrangements made with regard to supplementary old age pensions, where there was a scheme somewhat similar to this one, which was accepted by the House on trial, but which, I suggest, has not given the satisfaction which the House thought it would give. Nor will this scheme give the satisfaction which the Minister has led us to suppose it will give. The Minister spoke about a minimum figure of 16s. a week. With the working classes it is always a question of a minimum figure, a fodder basis, just as when the trade unions were kept down to the cost-of-living figure. There is no chance of the working classes having a little more; it is a question of keeping them one-sixteenth of an inch this side of starvation. That kind of arrangement is not good enough. Why should there always be this inquiry? Why not come forward with a scheme on the basis that the soldier is doing a job of work, and that even if he is in this country, he has a very difficult time.
I may say, in passing, that something will have to be done for the soldiers in this country during the coming dark and difficult winter, because many of them are getting "fed up," and that sort of thing will not help to improve their morale. Something must be done in the way of entertainment and of making them feel that they are much better thought of

than this White Paper suggests. Here is a proposal to inquire into all the needs of the household. Of course it is true that something is going to be done for those who are very badly in need. That is to say, that if they owe the landlord some money the landlord will be paid, and if they need a doctor the doctor will be paid. A very bad arrangement, it seems to me, because if you have four visits to the doctor at 5s. and five at 3s. 6d., that is £1 17s. 6d., and you can pay it. But obviously people will say to the doctor, "Come again and make it £2 is.," and then the Ministry will have to pay it. There are all these mathematical calculations in order to save a few shillings. The landlord will be paid, the doctor will be paid and, if there is a death in the family, the undertaker will be paid. The Government have produced a scheme, not for the benefit of the soldier and his dependants, but for the benefit of the landlords, the medical profession and the undertakers.
The machinery is costly and complicated. I should like to ask how much per pound of distributed money it costs to run this machine, with all the help from the public assistance officers and so on. If you were to cut out all this red tape and machinery you could put another 3s. in the £ on the dependants' pay straight away. It is costly and it will be very slow. The White Paper says it will begin on 1st November, but very few people will get their money during November or possibly during December. I hope, when the Minister broadcasts, he will make it clear, in order to avoid disappointment, that while the scheme is alleged to begin on 1st November applicants must not expect any money, perhaps in the main, until the New Year, because the machinery will grind very slowly. While this proposal may be of some benefit in the poorest and the worst cases I should like the Government to take it back. While we are thankful for small mercies, this is by no means an alternative to the right thing and it is not what the House has been expecting for months during which we have been looking forward to this Debate. What we want is a flat rate increase and an improvement in the soldier's pay commensurate with the sacrifice that he is making, and a flat rate increase also on the money paid to dependants, not only the Wives but the mothers, and particularly the widowed mothers,


who are suffering a great deal from the loss of the earnings of their sons. I hope the Government will reconsider it and give us a very much more adequate scheme and one which will substantially meet the kind of sacrifices which the soldier and his dependants are making.

Sir Richard Acland: I may have been out of the House when it was done, but I have not heard anyone give the Government an out-and-out word of thanks for the four free travelling warrants instead of two. I think our thanks are due to the Government for this concession. It will make a very great difference and we are very grateful for it. But, for the rest, I am sorry to say that I have to join in the almost wholly critical tone of the other speeches that have been made. I understand that now 20,000 applications are being received for hardship payments per week. They are being dealt with after an average delay of some five weeks, which is very bad. In the case of a new recruit it will probably be a week before he gets his form sent in, and it will be anything up to six weeks after he has joined before any payment is made. I think there will be 1,500,000 applicants during November. That is an estimate. The Government must know how many men there are in the Army. Deduct from that figure the 350,000 who are receiving benefit and will not have to apply, knock off 10 per cent., and that will give the number of applications which will be made.
The Ministry is dealing with 20,000 per week with its present staff and, I understand, by making considerable calls upon the services of the Ministry of Labour and National Service for the actual investigations on the spot. These 20,000 new applications per week will still go on because of the weekly call-up of new men. If the Ministry doubles its staff and doubles the demands made upon the personnel of the Ministry of Labour—an objectionable thing at a time when the Ministry of Labour should be tackling tasks which, from the point of view of war production, are much more urgent—it will be 75 weeks before these claims are sorted out. So that the average time a man will have to wait for his answer is 37 weeks. If that is too long a period to wait, and if, therefore, the Ministry quadruples its staff and quadruples the demands made on the Ministry

of Labour, it will then be 37 weeks before the claims are sorted out and the average which a man will have to wait will be 18½ weeks.
I have a suggestion which, I think, will in some way mitigate this disaster if taken up by the War Office with real vigour and determination. The applications should be dealt with by the officers of every unit and no excuses of any sort should be taken. I believe that the application forms could be redrafted in such a way that the very filling up of them would provide the Ministry with the answers they want, assuming they were filled up truthfully and accurately by men who understood what they were asked and what information was being asked for. I would advise the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions combined to call up either from their staffs, or from school-masters skilled in instructing in the art of mathematics, or from solicitors skilled, in handling the Rent Restrictions Acts and that kind of thing, a corps of instructors who should devise with the Ministry of Pensions a form which will provide the right answers and see that they are instructed in all the twists and turns that might arise. I should give them a week's course of instruction. When trained, I would send these people out to the area commands and assemble officers from the units who would receive instruction from them. If the officers are taken from a regiment they should be sent round to the batteries on particular days to fill up these forms under instructions from men who themselves had been instructed. When the forms have been received the Ministry should pay at once and investigate afterwards. There should, of course, be some stringent penalty for any deliberate falsification. This is not a small undertaking and will mean a great deal of work. The alternative is either an imposition of the work on to the staff of the Ministry of Labour, which it would be criminal to impose at this moment, or endless delay. I hope that the proposal will be seriously considered by the Government.
With reference to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Lord Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Crowder) and this comparison of the soldier's wage with the wage of other workers, why should


the comparison be made with the wage of other workers and not with the wage of other people? We have had this many, times from the benches opposite, on which, I would say at a guess, the average net spendable income must be well over £2 a day. We have had the comparison made between the soldier and the man whose wages are £5, or £6 or £7 a week. May we in future have the proper comparison between the soldier and the man whose net spendable income is over £2 a day? That is the point that has to be tackled before we can begin an evening out of rewards between those in the Services and those working in the factories.

Mr. Raikes: I rise, with a good deal of diffidence to address the House, but I can claim that my work has lain very largely on what might be described as the discipline side in the Air Force and I have had the opportunity of seeing where the shoe pinches among the men. I am obliged to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) that this scheme is a patchwork scheme. It will give help, undoubtedly, to a good many working mothers, but you will never properly face the problem of the man in the Services and his wife and dependants unless you are prepared to consider certain real amendments of the regulations in the Services themselves rather than what I should describe as a form of hardship committee.
A moment ago the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) said that hon. Members opposite were always drawing a comparison between the wages and allowances of the men in the Forces and the earnings of workers in industry, and asked why the comparison was with workers in industry and not with other people. Time and time ago I have found that the great grievance in the Services is this: A man has left his work and joined up, and his wife is left at home living next door to people enjoying much the same standard of life as they themselves used to enjoy; but the man next door is in a reserved occupation and remains at his work, and when bonuses arrive owing to the increase in the cost of living his wages increase— and I am making no attack upon that— whereas the soldier's wife finds her allow-

ance failing to maintain her at the same standard as she had when the cost of living was lower and her husband was working at his occupation. That woman is constantly feeling the pinch. While the conditions of the workers in industry are constantly improving her own conditions remain much as they were. That is the comparison which is drawn and it is not drawn by myself or anybody else because we desire to raise any class questions at a time when all classes should stand together.
I know that it is not a matter for the Ministry of Pensions, but I think that two things, at any rate, might be done with regard to allowances, quite apart from this new scheme. One thing I am glad to note is that the scheme, in so far as it deals with the unit of the family, treats every child equally, that is to say each child is reckoned as a half unit, and there is no differentiation between the first and the second child, a distinction which ought to be struck out of the ordinary family allowances scale. Further, unless and until industry can get together with the Services to try to avoid these over-invidious comparisons in pay, we cannot entirely bridge the gulf, but until that gulf is bridged we shall find discontent in every section of the Armed Forces. It is not so much that the men themselves feel discontent; that arises, from the letters from the ''missus" coining week after week telling them what is happening. A man in the Services sees his wife probably only once in three months, and what she is telling him weighs on his mind, and to that extent tends to make him a less efficient soldier, and that at a time when we have never had a greater need for efficiency in our Services, at a time when, may be, we shall have to face a greater crisis than we have passed through up to the present time.
I must say one word in regard to young officers. There has always been a tendency, which still exists but ought not to exist, to assume that because a young man is an officer he is in possession of private means; but we are now giving commissions to young men irrespective of their background. The ordinary service allowance for the wives of the men is sent automatically but the officers consolidated allowance is sent to him, and if he wants to keep all of it he can do so, unless his wife goes to a police court and complains.

Mr. Bellenger: If the officer does not normally maintain his wife, she does not get an allowance.

Mr. Raikes: If the wife complains that she is not being maintained, the officer's consolidated allowance is stopped at that stage; but unless direct complaint is made, to the very top, the wife of a man gets her allowance automatically. I do not think the differentiation is fair. Some day the Services will have to face the fact that family allowances have come to stay and cannot be confined to one class. We give the young officer the same consolidation whether he has no children to maintain or has six children. The young officer who has a wife and two or three children is in a pretty difficult position in keeping his household going at all. If he brings his wife as near as possible to where he is stationed, he probably finds that prices are exceedingly high. There is a great deal of profiteering going on in such cases. He keeps her upon a consolidated allowance of 7s. 6d. a day. Beyond that, if he is a keen officer, he has other expenses. He has to pay his mess accommodation as well. Before the war is over, family allowances must cover the case of the officer without means as it does the case of the man in the ranks
As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office is present, I would like to call his attention to an anomaly which was brought to my notice only a few days ago. If an officer in the R.A.F. should marry a W.A.A.F., and the parties are separated owing to the exigencies of the Service, the officer is entitled to draw an allowance for her— properly, I think. If, on the other hand, he should marry a member of the A.T.S., and she is separated from him as a result of his work, he fails to get a family allowance for her. I am bound to say that that is a distinction which is most uncomplimentary to the charming ladies with whom the War Office has to deal. But, leaving that point where it stands, I would simply say, in conclusion, that like other Members of this House I believe that our success in this struggle depends very largely upon the ordinary men and women serving in the Forces believing that they have got a square deal. The enemy does look after his own services. Let us take a leaf out of his book and be a little more generous than the scheme put forward to-day.

Mr. Dobbie: Along with every other Member who has expressed his opinion to-day, I am glad that an opportunity is being given to the House to let the country and the Government know the opinion of Members of the House of Commons in regard to the family allowances of members of the Forces. I hope that this is only an instalment. I am sorry that the Opposition has not placed an alternative on the Order Paper, challenging the Government and demanding something on a higher scale. I sometimes think that the question of soldiers' pay and allowances is handed over to the Minister of Pensions because of his popularity, because of his evident sincerity in expression of opinion when he is stating his case. I think the Government are building on that popularity and using the Minister of Pensions to get through the scheme outlined in the White Paper, which in my opinion does not reflect credit either on the Government or on the House of Commons. I hope, if it is accepted to-day, that the representatives of the other Services who have turned up will take this as an intimation to go back and review the situation. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who said that he regretted that this work was placed on the Minister of Pensions, because I cannot at all understand why the Government should not review the whole situation and give to the members of the Fighting Services a rate of pay and an allowance for their families which would remove them from the sphere of committees of this description altogether and relieve them entirely of the application of the means test. Because no matter by what name you call it, whether you call it a needs test or assistance, the fact remains that the mean, contemptuous means test is being applied to the men on whom we depend for the safety of the nation and the safety of our lives. No one in this Parliament can look the soldier of to-day in the face and feel that he has given him and his family a square deal on the basis of this White Paper.
The Minister said that the scheme was being recast. Well, the moulders have made a pretty rough job of it. We are making great play of the fact that there will be a minimum of 16s. a week. Who is there in this House who would like to live on that? I think that ought to be the test. This scheme is based on the


lowest rate of pay of an unskilled worker, but the job of the soldier of to-day is not the job of an unskilled worker; it is the job of a highly skilled artisan, coupled with courage and determination. We are showing a very poor appreciation of the services we demand from these men, and from the women who are in the Services. In paragraph 2 it is stated that after reasonable commitments have been met a unit basis of 16s. per week shall be allowed. Who is going to say what the reasonable commitments are?
I wonder if the House understands that out of the 450,000 there have been 450,000 applications made, not 300,000. Out of the 450,000 who have already made application 150,000 of them have been refused by the application of the means test. I want everyone to remember that the means test still remains in its application to those who may apply in the future. And it is a review by the staff, not by the committee, not by the Minister. I want to know from whoever replies to the Debate on behalf of the Minister, if they will tell us that the Minister will lay down quite clearly and definitely to the staff, in the form of instructions what is looked upon as a reasonable commitment, and whether the House has an opportunity of agreeing with what might, or what might not, be reasonable commitments. It says in the White Paper that the unit basis shall be 16s. per head and that a child up to school leaving age—15 years, the Minister told us—shall be looked upon as a half unit, 8s. This, as has been said by some of those who have spoken before, is only a poverty basis. The Minister has made a reference to the woman with six children and what she would receive. He forgot to draw the picture to the House that probably one week she would have to buy six pairs of new boots or pay for repairs to six pairs. I would not say that the Minister has forgotten—I believe he is the victim of circumstances in having to present and champion this White Paper to-day—but those responsible for drawing it up have evidently not thought of these things.
The Minister says that we will go up to 20s. a week. What are the types of cases on which we shall do that? If it is necessary for the wife of one Service man, what is wrong with the woman who is

only getting 16s.? These are some of the questions we should like to ask. I should like whoever is to reply to tell us what is to be the unit basis for a soldier's wife who, because she may be too old or not very well in health, is unable to take or get work and is living in a house by herself, keeping the home going for when her husband returns. Is she expected to live on a unit basis of 16s.? That is physically and absolutely impossible. I hope the Minister will give due consideration to these things.
In view of the fact that time is getting on and many other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not take up the time of the House on the matter except again to appeal to the Minister to make some sort of statement to the House when he replies, that this is only an interim report, that he intends to go back and endeavour to do something better. I wish some representative of the War Office could rise and say that so far as they are concerned they will go back to their Department, bearing in mind the criticism which has been levelled in this House at this White Paper, about the absolute inadequacy of its contents, and promising to prepare and lay before this House a scheme that will give to the whole of the members of the Forces a reasonable rate of wage that will allow them and their wives and families to live in a decent state of comfort without the application of any kind of means test at all under any circumstances.
I would like, in conclusion, to ask the Minister, when he replies, if he would agree that, when a form is filled up and goes back to the people who have made the application, if they are refused, they should be given a clear intimation that they have a right of appeal. Thousands of those people who have been refused are unaware of the fact that they have a right of appeal. I would like the Minister to take into consideration, further, the placing of those forms at the Post Office where the dependants draw their weekly money. There is, in spite of the Minister's assurance, a tremendous difficulty in obtaining these forms. I hope that the Minister, and other members of the Government, will bear in mind, not the challenge, but the advice, that the House of Commons has given them to-day, lest a greater, stronger and more determined force may arise and speak to them in no uncertain voice.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I do not want to take up the time of the House, but as the hon. Member for South East Essex (Mr. Raikes) has referred to a particular case of what is considered to be unfairness, I should like to deal with it at once. He suggested that there was discrimination between a W.A.A.F. officer and an officer of the A.T.S. I am sure that that is not the case. So far as we are aware, there is no rule which would establish any discrimination of that kind. However I am sure the hon. Member would not have spoken without some authority for what he said. If he will give me an example, I shall be glad to look into it. So far as we are aware, however, there is no discrimination in this matter between the A.T.S. and the W.A.A.F. I can give an assurance that the War Office will most certainly take to heart everything that has been said in this Debate.

Miss Ward: I feel that I am entitled to claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments as I am a member of the War Service Grants Committee, which is charged with the task of advising the Minister on these very important questions. Also, as a back bench Member of Parliament, I have the responsibility of voicing my views and the views of my constituents on the allowances which are paid to the dependants of Service men. May I make it plain that I am speaking purely as a Member of Parliament? I have no authority to speak for the War Service Grants Committee; but I am very glad indeed to be a member of that Committee. The chairman, Sir Charles Doughty, is a distinguished member of the legal profession, with a very wide knowledge of varying circumstances of life, and he has a very generous and sympathetic approach to the problems we are considering to-day. In that sense, he has given direction and guidance to the Committee. I am delighted to hear the criticisms that have been voiced to-day from both sides of the House. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether before the White Paper was issued the advice of the Advisory Committee was taken?

Sir W. Womersley: Would the hon. Lady like me to answer that now?

Miss Ward: I would.

Sir W. Womersley: I said in my opening remarks that recommendations that had been made from time to time by my Advisory Committee had been acted upon in the preparation of the White Paper. When it came to the final stage and the White Paper had to be produced in time for the Debate—a demand having been made for a Debate this week—it was not possible for me to consult the Committee further, and I did not do so.

Miss Ward: I do not want to impose the blame on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions. He has always been most approachable, and, I believe, has the real interests of the Service men at heart, nor do I want to put any blame on the Department. But I do want to blame the system. Many people may criticise me for what I am going to say, but I want to bring a sense of reality into our form of government. It is quite time that a few strong words were directed to the Government in this connection. We have all known for some considerable lime—and my right hon. Friend made it perfectly plain in his opening statement—of the feeling in the country about the inadequacy of the allowances being paid to dependants of Service men. Did my right hon. Friend always accept the advice of his Committee? I am not blaming him. I think there are greater powers than he; as has been pointed out, the Service Departments, the Government, the Treasury have all been in a position to prevent him from making adequate preparations or alterations, but it has been very well known for many months what discontent, dissatisfaction and legitimate grievances there were among Service men on these points.
This is what happened. I understand that a Debate was asked for. I am only a back bench Member and therefore do not know what is in the mind of the Government, but rumour has it, and it has been stated, that an appeal was made to the party which wished to bring up the matter for discussion to hold off the Debate for some little time until the Government could formulate their plans. I am told that an appropriate appeal was addressed to the party and that the appeal of the Minister was rejected. The Debate had to take place, and—it is now perfectly evident—the White Paper was then prepared without any adequate or proper consultation of any kind or description.


I must say in all sincerity that I consider it a most extraordinary thing to have an Advisory Committee who have to accept criticism in the Press and have responsibility for every form issued to every man who makes an application for a war service grant. The White Paper was issued, and the House is being asked to adopt the proposals, and the Advisory Committee are to be charged in the future with advising the Minister and are to go on doing their work, and yet they could not have been consulted as to their views on the White Paper.
That is not leadership; that is not direction. We want leadership and direction from the Government. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend. I have not the slightest doubt he was told that it had been decided to have the Debate to-day and that he and his Department worked extraordinarily hard to prepare the White Paper and issue it and give the House an opportunity of discussing the proposals. But, believe me, we want a Government that has vision and one that plans ahead. We do not want a Government, when there is a united demand and a demand in the Press, that gives way to panic and produces a scheme which has not had proper consideration by the people who are qualified and have been asked to consider this question. I do not refer only to the War Service Grants Committee. There are the Soldiers and Sailors Families' Association, the Council of Social Service, the Citizens Advice Bureau, the British Legion and masses of other people. You have your officers' organisations and Service Departments and all the information available, and representations have been made time and time again in individual Questions in this House. The Government did not respond until there was a demand for a Debate, and then the Government, because public opinion was so strong, had not the courage to say, "We were going to make better proposals and better preparation, but we must consult these people, on whom we have been relying for some time." It is not just leadership; it is merely coming forward to say to the House, "What wonderful schemes we are now producing." I am bound by the traditions of service on the Advisory Committee, and by a sense of having some responsibility and not being in a position to unseal my lips. I intend to

abide by that tradition, which is consistent with the best public service, but I would like to say to my right hon. Friend, in all fairness to the Committee, that at the end of this Debate he ought to prepare a White Paper setting out the recommendations which have been made from time to time by his War Service Grants Committee and the action which has been taken upon them.
I can speak freely on this matter, because it is not a personal matter at all. I am here to defend the work of the Committee, which has worked extremely hard to help my right hon. Friend. I do not want even the smallest vote of thanks given to me; I want the work of the Committee acknowledged and the Minister to make it perfectly plain to the country that we are only an Advisory Committee, whose advice he has the right to reject if he so desires. In all fairness he should tell the truth to the House of Commons and explain how it was that a White Paper has been prepared and presented to the House for discussion without one single word of advice being asked of this Committee.
I want to say one ether thing about the White Paper, and then I have finished. Paragraph 4 says:
…a graduated scale will be applied to higher unit income and will be so adjusted as to give more liberal treatment than at present.
Is my right hon. Friend's Advisory Committee to be asked to advise him on what they think a proper graduated scale, or has the pass already been sold to the Treasury? What are the arrangements which have been made for pregnant women in regard to their uniform and allowances? I have a letter from a welfare officer who states that when he wrote to a regimental paymaster about an urgent case, asking him to back an application to the War Service Grants Committee, he replied that he had great sympathy with the application but that he already had 500 urgent cases, and there was not a hope that this case would get to the appropriate Government channel for at least eight weeks. So far as administration is concerned, the Committee are in no way responsible. We are not asked to advise on administration; that is no part of our terms of reference. I quite understand the difficulties in which my right hon. Friend finds himself


with regard to staff, personnel and trained people to carry out administration, but why always say everything is going on perfectly well when we know that men and their wives have had to wait for months and months? It is a difficult position for a Minister to face, and it is not entirely his responsibility. It is the most difficult thing in the world to administer fairly and equitably a scheme of this kind, and I think that hon. Members who have voiced their doubts as to whether the Department can carry on the detailed work which is involved in this scheme have touched on an important point. Has the Minister already decided what is to be done with regard to grants to pregnant women, or is the Advisory Committee to be asked to give advice on this matter?
There are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and although there is a great deal more I could say, I will conclude with these words. The Ministry of Information spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on stimulating morale in the country, and sometimes they are very successful. But if the Government knew what is being said in the back streets, they would save themselves the trouble of spending that money. In war time we have to do justice, and we have to do it before public clamour demands that it shall be done. The Ministry of Pensions must take advantage of the experience there is in the country, and the}' must take advice from people who know what is going on. They must not fall into the trap of hastily bringing forward ill-considered proposals in order to try to quieten Parliamentary public opinion. Let us be thankful that Parliament still lives and that we have an opportunity of voicing our criticisms in Parliamentary Debates.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I feel that at this juncture one ought to express a certain amount of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions. Only one portion of his speech has met with universal approval, and that one portion concerned something with which he has nothing to do in his administration. He told us that serving members of the Forces are to be granted four free travel warrants a year, a piece of justice that is long overdue. The White Paper which the Minister has presented has been received with a mixed chorus of commendation and condemna-

tion. The commendation has been largely in inspired articles in the Press prior to this Debate, and the condemnation has been in the speeches that we have heard in the Debate. One must pay a tribute to the spirit in which the Minister has carried out the administration of his Department and his generous impulses and desire to deal fairly with every case, now the Services have pushed on to him the case of the dependants of those in the fighting Services. Surely it is only right and just that the care, comfort and well-being of those in the Forces and their dependants should be the consideration of the Service Departments, and that they ought themselves to have brought forward proposals to improve these conditions.
What is to happen as a result of this White Paper? In reading the articles in the Press during the last two or three days, one might have had great hopes that there would be greatly increased allowances and improved conditions for the great majority of those who have relatives in the Forces. There is no doubt that great hopes will have been raised, and those hopes will be dashed as the months go by and these people do not receive improved allowances. Their hopes will be turned to doubts and grave disquiet. A considerable amount of annoyance and vexation will ensue, and there will be a good deal of unrest. Eventually when those who are entitled to receive these additional benefits do receive them, there will be no sense of thankfulness in their hearts at having received them, but annoyance that they did not receive them earlier. I submit that the White Paper will in no way deal with the major problem.
I want briefly to deal with one or two points. I understand that applications will have to be made to the Assistance Board. We are told that, because of an excess of business, the Post Office will not be able to issue the forms to applicants. I hope strong pressure will be brought to bear upon the Post Office to become servants of the community in this matter. A number of people will make personal application at the Assistance Board office. The offices of the Assistance Board are situated very long distances away from the homes of the people who have men in the Fighting Forces. Only within the last fortnight the Assistance Board office


has been moved from Uxbridge to Feltham, which involves a journey of at least three hours and an expenditure of 1s. 8£d. People cannot afford to take such a journey. The greatest facility should be given to people to obtain the essential form. It has been suggested that they may be distributed through certain agencies. I hope that the good services of the local authorities will be invoked and also of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, a service that is invaluable in these days. I want to make what may seem on the face of it an extravagant proposal. I suggest, as it is most desirable that the man or woman who is serving should fill the form rather than the wife, that every member of the Fighting Services should, as speedily as possible, be given one of these forms. This could be done on pay parades. The welfare officers could advise on how to fill up the forms.
There is another point that I should like answered. I gather that certain commitments will be met. I want to know what about commitments which have been increased during the man's service. I have in mind a case of a woman who is very heavily in debt in regard to her rates. She has to pay something like 25s. a week for her house with a large rateable value and has got very heavily into debt and cannot secure cheaper accommodation. The local authority have been very generous and have allowed it to continue until it has risen to very many pounds. I want to know if, in these conditions, the whole amount will be paid off or only the proportion that was owing when the man entered the Service. I submit that it is essential that the whole of the liability should be taken over. Then what steps are to be taken to prevent people exploiting this White Paper themselves? I do not mean members of the Services, but the owners of houses. What is to stop people who let furnished rooms—and in many cases relatives of serving men and women are compelled to live in furnished or partly furnished rooms—from increasing their rents and getting the extra rent, as it were, out of national funds?
With regard to children, the Minister stated that the age would be 15. I want him to reconsider that, and I hope he will make it the school-leaving age,

which is 14. Even in these difficult times a large number of parents are voluntarily keeping their children at school until the age of 15, but if they are to receive only half-rate the possibility of the children of serving soldiers being kept at school for another year will be greatly diminished. I suggest that the full rate should be continued to all children over 14 as. long as they are in educational establishments. I want to go further and suggest that the full rate should be given for the sick and ailing child until the father returns if the child does not get better before. I happen to possess one of the forms, and I must say that it will demand a tremendous amount of interrogation and inquiry. What to my mind should be essential on the form is not there. There is no space on it for the applicant to give any indication of his other commitments, rent and so forth. Therefore, it means that the person who makes the inquiry will have to go through a large amount of interrogation. Cannot the form be simplified and made more complete so that the least number of questions need be asked when inquiry is made?
This increase in allowances, which was expected, may have a depressing effect upon the morale of our troops. It is true to say that the serving soldiers, airmen or sailors are more affected by and concerned with the discomforts of their kin than about their own personal discomforts. They have much graver anxiety about the shortage of food among their own people at home than any shortage they may experience. The serving man is concerned not only for the security of his home and folk from air raids and enemy action, but for their security from economic distress and poverty. We had hoped that the new scheme would bring greater hope, comfort and security for those who are fighting or are waiting 1o fight the battles of this country. I admit that the Minister of Pensions will have an extremely difficult and hard time. If one were to read his mind, I think it would be discovered that he would have preferred a different scheme. I cannot believe that he likes or approves of this imposition of the means test, but he has to make the best of a bad job. May I express the hope that he will soon come to the House with the statement that the present scheme is one which it is impossible to administer and that he himself will present a scheme


of much greater breadth, much greater understanding and which will confer much greater benefit upon all those who are serving in the Forces. In the winning of the war we have to preserve the homes of our people.

Colonel Medlicott: I venture to address the House for a few minutes upon this White Paper, because, as one of the Army Welfare Officers I have been very close to the administration of war service grants ever since the system came into being. Those of us who have, at the expenditure of some toil and tribulation, extracted from the scheme the modest results which have hitherto been available view the present figures rather more favourably than has been the case generally in the House to-day. I regard the increases as a definite step in the right direction, and the fact that this further series of concessions has been announced may, I think, be taken as an indication that if experience shows that still further increases are necessary they will be made. I am, however, more concerned about the machinery under which this scheme is to operate. If the delays which have, unfortunately, been so great a feature in the past are to be repeated, a heavy responsibility will rest upon the Minister. I think I am right in saying that the serious delays which have taken place are, perhaps, the source of the greatest amount of criticism which has arisen. The need for making application for a war service grant does not arise until a state of hardship has become apparent, and speed in decision is then absolutely vital. As has been said in another connection, one tank now is worth five in a few months' time, and time and time again one has met cases where an immediate decision to allow a comparatively small amount would have made all the difference to the serving man's family. I welcome this White Paper, because I am convinced that in all the circumstances the method of supplementing the serving man's income in this manner, according to his need, is sound.
But, as I remarked a moment ago, a heavy responsibility rests upon the Minister, because in the opinion of most of those who have come into contact with the working of the scheme the machinery is not capable of bearing the added load which will now be placed upon it. I do

the Minister the credit of assuming that he has not overlooked that somewhat important point, and I feel sure that he has worked out in his own mind the very radical improvements which will have to be made if that speed is to be provided. If one follows the journey of the application form it is apparent that the existing procedure is very cumbersome. It starts off, perhaps, either in the home of the wife, if the serving man is overseas, or in the orderly room. It goes to the regimental paymaster, then on to the committee, then to the Assistance Board, then back to the committee, and then it may even have to go back to the regimental paymaster if some change has taken place in the man's circumstances since the application was first made. It is almost impossible to put the blame for delay upon any particular person when the form has to go through so many stages, but the responsibility for cutting out these various causes of delay rests upon the Minister. I think it is correct to say that many of these references back could be avoided if the committee were given a wider discretion. Applications are referred back chiefly in order to avoid any risk of over-payment of Treasury money, and I feel that we have reached the stage where we need not be so meticulously careful. If the families of a few hundred or a few thousand serving men receive overpayment for a short time, it is a small price to pay for a general speeding up in the whole procedure.
Reference has been made to the need for further publicity. We may be sure that in the energetic hands of the Minister the widest publicity will be secured, but I suggest that the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. H. Beaumont) is worthy of further thought by the Minister. It docs not seem to be satisfactory that a scheme intended to provide better incomes for all the serving men in the British Forces should be dependent at any point upon publicity. It ought to be a matter of absolute right that every soldier in the Army and every man serving in the Navy or the Air Force should automatically be entitled to apply for this grant. I would go even further than the hon. Member who last spoke; I would invite the Minister to consider whether the onus of putting forward these applications should


not be placed upon regimental paymasters. There may be practical difficulties which would make that impossible, but I think it is well worthy of consideration whether the question of entitlement to war service grant should not be initiated by the pay authorities themselves.
I would make a further suggestion regarding the machinery. I understand that the real investigation is made at the present time by a representative of the Assistance Board. He, however, simply advises the War Service Grants Committee, and the Committee, in their turn, advise the Minister. One wonders whether it would be possible to decentralise the procedure and to place the power of decision much more in the hands of Assistance Board officers, working in conjunction with regimental paymasters. My experience has shown that the Committee appears to be much overworked. Members of the Committee are doing wonderful work, personally, but the Department as a whole does not appear to be able to stand the strain of the enormous number of applications which are put in. Whatever method is adopted of putting the scheme into operation, whether it is to be a matter for the regimental paymasters or left to publicity, I suggest that some decentralisation would be an effective improvement in the machinery.
I welcomed very much the assurance by the Minister that he will ask the Post Office to reconsider the question of issuing the forms. It will be very much easier for the post offices to hand out forms than to spend time giving information about the Assistance Board and generally discussing the matter. The Post Office has become the place to which people are accustomed to turn for forms concerning all State allowances. I also hope that the Committee will interpret their new instructions as generously as possible. I have always had the impression that the hand of the Treasury has weighed with extreme heaviness upon the Committee who have been very strictly bound by regulations regarding what they could agree to.
I do not want to give a wrong impression by an illustration, but a case came to my notice in which, after many weeks of investigation and discussion, an award was announced amounting to 1s. a week. If

hardship had in fact been proved in that case, it is impossible to contend that it was relieved by so minute a grant. Surely it was a matter of many shillings; in any case, the Service man and his family might have been given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, I hope that in considering what are "reasonable commitments," the Committee will be authorised—they need not be instructed, they need only be authorised—to give the most generous interpretation to what constitutes hardship. I feel that if that is done, the scheme may prove to be a very definite contribution towards the needs of the serving man. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I do not suggest for one moment that the figures which are now brought forward can be regarded as perfect, nor as all that we could wish, but I believe that if the Minister can give authority for a more generous interpretation of the Committee's powers, and if, above all, he will so reorganise his machine as to enable decisions to be arrived at with speed, this White Paper may be regarded as the promise of a step forward in our endeavours to deal properly with the position of the serving man and his dependants.

Major Haden Guest: It is quite clear from the way the Debate has gone to-day, and from the Minister's opening statement, that this White Paper is very hastily constructed and ill digested, and is one which ought not to have been brought before the House in its present form. The scheme is quite clearly unworkable. I think every experienced Member of this House who knows anything about administration realises that it is unworkable. I presume that this Debate has no mandatory effect, but I trust sincerely that this is the last we shall hear of this scheme, which is bound to be condemned by every Service person who looks at the facts as they are and by everyone in the country who wants to maintain the morale of our troops at a proper level.
However well intentioned this scheme may be, and whatever the reasons—I find it difficult to understand them—that led to its being brought forward in this way, it is quite clear that not the Minister but the Government have made a very serious mistake in bringing it forward. It has been condemned from all sides of the House; even the last speaker, who said


the kindest things he could think of and who seemed to be trying very hard to say kind things, was not able to keep what amounted to a condemnation of the scheme out of his own speech. The point that first appealed to me about this scheme was the very simple one that even if it had been in itself a scheme operating useful improvements in the condition of allowances, it was one which would not work. Its administration will not work. The most favourable estimate I have heard from authoritative sources—the Minister will recognise them—of the amount of time needed to deal with the claims which will come pouring in is three months. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) has suggested that it might be a period of over a year. It will certainly be not less than six months. Have the Government—has the hon. Gentleman opposite—forgotten that we have not six months in which to play about with the morale of the soldier? Have the Government forgotten that there is at the present time a front on which our Forces are engaged, a front which extends from Moscow to London and which is being heavily attacked, and that if the attack at the other end is as successful as the German generals wish, it will turn round in this direction?
Let me remind the Minister of one remark he made. He said that the soldier was not very much concerned about his own pay, but that what upset him was when he got a letter from home about allowances, about the condition of his wife and children. That upset him for several days. Officers had told him, I believe, that for several days the man was below par. That was the impression he conveyed. It is undoubtedly true. What is the case with regard to this proposal that the Minister has brought forward, that in every case in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy there shall be a fresh assessment, that all these millions of people will have to appeal to the Assistance Board? This proposal is one which I find it difficult to characterise in Parliamentary language. It is a most discreditable proposal, and it ought to be withdrawn with the scorn of Parliament upon it which it deserves. We have no time to play around like this with the morale of the men. The Minister said very definitely in the course of his speech that one of the main objections to the all-round flat-rate increase, as proposed by the T.U.C., or

some modification of it, was the cost; that is to say, the Treasury have put out their fiat that there shall be no flat-rate increase. The Treasury have enlisted themselves to strike a severe blow against the morale of the Services. That is what it means in plain English from the standpoint of operations; there is not the slightest doubt about that.
We ought to keep our men keyed up to the highest pitch. Our turn for very severe fighting on the Russian scale may not be such a very long way away. The fact that there is a case for keeping the hardship grants machinery working in order that quite exceptional cases may be dealt with is, I think, quite true. This should be an exceptional and not a routine matter, but the idea of the whole Army, the Air Force and the Navy being lined up, as it were, or their wives being lined up, outside the Assistance Board offices, to get these forms and fill them up—the thing is madness; it is impossible to carry it out. Where is the Minister to get his staff? Would that staff not be very much better employed in munitions work or productive industry? How is he to square his demand for increased staff with the Minister of Labour? How can he possibly do it? T venture to say that it will not be possible to get the staff sufficiently trained to do this work. As the Minister knows, local authorities and Government Departments have the greatest difficulty in getting people of the right capacity to do their work at the present time. How is he going to get this enormous increase of Assistance Board employees, which he will require if these determinations of need and all the rest of it are to be carried out in any measurably small period? While the raising of the grant from £2 to £3 and the raising of the limits of what may be given should be at once carried out, the other questions should be put on one side and a conference arranged with the T.U.C., who, in this matter, have spoken for the working class of the country, and some compromise arrangement or some arrangement arrived at to bring forward some scheme of allowances on a flat-rate basis. There is no other way by which you can make a practical scheme."
If the Treasury is to go on as it has been doing, I hesitate to think what will be the effect on the Army in two or three


months' time. The chief subject of discussion will be the form put out by the Ministry of Pensions, and the chief difficulty will be the filling-up of these forms. I know this subject from two sides. I knew the Army extremely well in the last war, and I know the Army in this war. I have been serving with them for 15 months. I know the difficulties of the men, the difficulties of the Services. I know the difficulties of administration, because I have been acting on the staff, in administrative work, for the last 15 months. You are going to increase the difficulties very seriously. I also know the difficulties of the women who will have to fill up these forms, because I have spent much of my life as a doctor among the people living in small back streets who supply the bulk of the British Army. These women will not know how to fill up these forms, which are extremely confusing.
Let me go back to the point, which I think the Government have forgotten, that if you bring this scheme into operation you will very seriously upset the morale of the Services. The lull at present is a deceptive lull. We should always remember when there is such a lull that we are fighting not only for our lives and our institutions, but for the lives and instutions of free men everywhere. They depend upon us. Crass maladministration of the kind proposed to-day should not go through without the strong condemnation that it has had. I trust that the Minister will take this proposal back, that he will realise that it was a mistake and a badly-conceived scheme, and that he will have the courage to call in the T.U.C. to discuss the matter, so that he may have a scheme which is fair to everyone. After the Treasury have put up their point, if they disagree, let us remember that it is not they who should decide our destinies, but Parliament. In unhesitating words to-day, speaker after speaker has condemned this scheme. If the Government put this scheme into operation now, they will be condemned by the country.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Naturally, this Debate has centred chiefly upon the effect of these proposals on the Army. I obtained special leave to attend this Debate, as one who took no part in the recent campaign for

increased allowances for officers, not because I had no sympathy with it, but because I thought that the case of an increase for the rank and file was considerably more urgent. I am gravely disappointed with this White Paper. I first raised this matter in the Budget Debate in 1940, and I put a question to the Prime Minister last month asking whether the Government would now consider a scheme for raising the basic rates of pay of the Services as a whole.
No argument has been put forward to-day about the necessity for an improvement. There has been, however, a clash between Ministers and private Members regarding the method. The Government have chosen to extend the machinery for family allowances. That leaves outside the vast number of young single men in all three Forces. I claim that the raising of the basic rate is essential. I am aware that already a 6d. war bonus has been granted. I ally myself, if I may, with the T.U.C. in their recent resolution, which advocated a figure of 3s. I am glad to see that they come part of the way with me, but in my opinion that august body is losing its form; in my opinion, the basic rate should be 4s. I have no desire to enter into exaggerated language about Dives in the munitions factories and Lazarus in the Forces: no munitions worker fares sumptuously every day; but there is a great gulf fixed between, say, the private soldiers and these engineers, surely strangely unrepresentative of their calling, who last week sent a telegram to the Prime Minister demanding that their less fortunate comrades should be flung forthwith into a military adventure in Western Europe. May I also remark in passing that the rank and file of the Forces cannot hope to command the salaries of those Sabbath Day strategists of Fleet Street who are advocating the same course?
I think it has been clear from the attitude of hon. Members opposite that putting forward this view is not to create any bad blood between those in the Forces and industrial workers. I happen to know that there is strong feeling among industrial workers themselves that their position in this matter is invidious. I remember speaking to a man in my constituency the last time that I was there on leave who


said he deplored the fact and fell humiliated that he was drawing £8 per week while his brother, one of the guardians of Tobruk, was drawing only 17s. 6d. I believe that that feeling is strong among industrial workers themselves and there is no question of creating bad blood between them and members of the Force.
I am told that it is due to the attitude of the Government and that their opposition to an increase in the basic rate is due to Treasury opposition. For the last half-hour, for the first time, we have had a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench. I wish they had thought it worth while to attend the earlier part of the Debate. But really the Treasury cannot say, when the question of increases to the Forces comes up, that the increased expenditure will result in inflation when the same arguments are not adduced and enforced against wage increases when they come along. Reserved occupations cannot be reserved from Treasury dictums concerning inflation, nor can one have one law for industrial workers and another for the Services in these matters. It so happens that my naval duty lies principally among convoy signalmen, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who is present, will testify that these young men have played a noble part in bringing safely to our shores millions of tons of precious cargoes vital to our survival, and it is strangely ironical that as they come ashore they have to pass posters inviting them to convoy to victory with savings they are unable to make. This method of increasing allowances is a second best. The Government should increase both allowances and the basic rate of pay.
I am speaking in all good temper when I say that there is an unfortunate resemblance to the discrepancy in the treatment of the rank and file compared with industry which existed in the last war. There is bound to be a suspicion that this sinister parallel will be extended to the post-war period and that the men who return with victory on their banners will be elbowed out of industry and rewarded with doles. I am confident that this is not the intention of the Government, but actions speak louder than words in this matter, and, to say the least of it, it is unfortunate that a

Government, who have acted with boldness and initiative in facing many political and military hazards, should in these questions follow the technique beloved of the Duke of Plaza Toro. I hope that in these matters Ministers will give a spontaneous lead and not leave it to us Private Members to be the advocates of generosity to the fighting men. There is one thing I would make quite clear. I would not like hon. Gentlemen opposite to give the Government or the House the impression that these proposals are causing rampant discontent among the rank and file. I know that the proposals are only a day or two old, but I have taken very great care to try and find out the reactions, and I have heard no grumbling from any of the men whom I have the honour to command. Of course, they cannot lobby, and, in any case, they are not of that kidney.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Adamson.]

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I believe, in all seriousness, that these young men believe the issue to be so vital that even if you cut their pay in half they would still give of their best without thinking of pounds, shillings and pence. But this fact alone—and it is this observation that I want to impress upon the Minister—the fact of their willing service and their splendid sacrifice to achieve victory, come what may, lays the greatest of all obligations upon His Majesty's Government and, indeed, upon every individual Member of this House. The Government have had a bad day; will they not take back the White Paper and try to produce something better?

Mr. Bellenger: I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) that this White Paper has not caused a tremendous depreciation in morale throughout the Forces. I do not think any hon. Member has suggested that, but as one who can speak with great familiarity about the Army, having been in the last war and in this, I say that the Services have a peculiar way of expressing their discontent. It used to be called in the last war a state of "fed-upness,"


and in this war I believe it is called a state of "browning off." Do not let us be misled by Army slang or expression, but there is in the ranks of the Army a feeling of considerable discontent. At what? At the disparity between what they are getting in pay and allowances and what is being obtained in private industry. The War Office have an extensive welfare department, with officers all over the place whose job it is to inform the Department of the feeling among all ranks in matters such as this, but I warn the Government that if they do not take the feeling of the Fighting Services into account on matters of this nature, then at one time or another, in certain circumstances, there may be a danger of a break
I quite agree that it is not a question of money that actuates the splendid fighting spirit of men and women in the Forces, but, speaking as one who served in the ranks myself, I know how acceptable it was to me not only to get my meagre Army pay —then 1s. 1½d. a day—but also an allowance from my employer. When you see pictures of soldiers in full kit, side by side, swimming rivers, it makes you wonder if it does not possibly occur to Private Thomas Atkins and Private Thomas Brown that one is swimming a river for 2s. 6d. a day while his neighbour's pay is being augmented by a subsidy from his private employer. That sort of thing will not do. Obviously, it is impossible to go into details of the White Paper at this late hour. I could speak for a long time about its anomalies, but what has happened has been this. Feeling has arisen throughout the Services about the inadequacy of pay and allowances. It is being expressed in various ways, inside and outside this House, and it has culminated in the Trades Union Congress asking for very radical and substantial increases in the pay and allowances of our Fighting Forces.
What have the Government done? They realised that the point had come when they must stop the rising agitation for it could not be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, as is the case when a big union demands negotiations for an increase in wages. They passed it to the Treasury, and the Treasury, because they work with a very antiquated pint pot,

said that they could not get more out of the pot than a pint. The Government said that they must do something, and they squeezed this out of the standard measure. The whole matter of Service pay and allowances has to be considered in relation to all expenditure in war time. None of these things can be considered in isolation. I say to the Government that the time will arrive when they will have to consider matters of this sort, not in isolation, but as one complete whole. The whole question of war expenditure, wages and prices has to be considered, for otherwise there will be not only the danger of inflation facing us, but perhaps other dangers more serious.
I want to make a brief reference to one anomaly which has been created by the White Paper. It introduces a very desirable improvement in that the soldier's pay up to 4s. a day is not taken into account when considering the unit basis on which a war service grant will be made. I welcome that change. But consider what has happened. Not only are war service grants administered by the Ministry of Pensions, but dependants' allowances are administered by the Service Departments; and as far as I can see, there is no provision for that excellent piece of progress in the computation of dependants' allowances as administered by the Service Departments. I could quote many other anomalies which have been created by the White Paper.
I suggest to the Minister and the House that in ordinary times we would have divided on this issue. If my right hon. and hon. Friends who now sit with the Government had been in opposition, we would in normal times have done our best to reject this White Paper. We do not do so now. Why? Because out of a sense of loyalty to our leaders in the Government, and out of a sense of national unity, we seek to bring to bear on the Government what pressure we can by our speeches in the House. But do not let the Government mistake the intentions of the feelings of the House in this matter. Not one hon. Member has had anything really creditable to say about the White Paper. If our loyalty is not to be trespassed on, I suggest to the Government that they must take notice of what hon. Members have told them in the Debate. I suggest, further, that it is time we had a real council of State, for otherwise we cannot


win the war. There is a Coalition Government at the present time, based on a party system even to-day. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that no consultations took place between the Minister of Pensions and the Advisory Committee. I will go further and say that very little consultation took place between the Minister and those Service Members, some of them with very considerable experience in these matters, who could have warned him of some of the pitfalls into which he has fallen in the composition of the White Paper.
If we are to get a real victory effort, which I cannot see at the moment, we have to mobilise all the forces in the country, and especially in this House must we utilise every force we can. At the present time we are not doing so. That is the reason we have got to the state in which the Services are fobbed off with proposals of this sort, which are to be administered by the Minister of Pensions, who is really not the Minister to do this. An indication of the feeling of the Service Departments is to be found in the lack of attention which they have paid to our Debate. One or two Undersecretaries from the Service Departments have been present, but I suggest that when matters of this nature are discussed, there ought to be present at least one of the heads of those Departments, particularly the Secretary of State for War, who generally leads the way in these matters for the three Services. I can only express the hope that there will be some improvement. If we cannot get an improvement in this manner, then much more radical steps will have to be taken to enforce our views on the Government. I hope the Government will be reasonable in the matter. I am sure that when Lord Beaverbrook asks for 30,000 tanks there is no question of the Treasury giving their approval of the cost. When we ask for a modest increase in the remuneration of the Services which have to operate those tanks we should not have the Treasury stepping in and saying, "You can only give a miserable £8,000,000 because it would otherwise cost such a lot of money." Of course it would: I know it only too well as a taxpayer, but the problem has to be faced. Why not let us face it now?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): This

has been an interesting Debate. I have heard discussions on schemes which have perhaps had a more unqualified and enthusiastic reception than this, but, even so, there does not seem to have been over much criticism of the scheme itself. The main criticism appears to be as to whether we should have this or some other method of providing these payments. As far as I can gather, the method in the mind of most people is a flat rate of increase in pay and allowances. The Minister has explained why we have this method of dealing with the question in preference to any other, and I must confine myself to this scheme. An hon. Member asked me if I looked after this part of the Department's work. I have done so since I went there. I soon found that there were serious deficiencies in the present war service grants scheme. When this opportunity came up and we discussed it, we took advantage of the situation to get rid of most of those deficiencies and to put into operation what we considered was a greatly improved scheme. I think everyone will agree that, whatever the criticism may be in other regards, this scheme is a vast improvement on the present one. One of the main troubles that I came across was this: You had a man who before he joined up was in a low wage employment. His pay, allotment and allowances very often amounted to more than his wages before he entered the Service, and because of that fact you could not give him anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]. Because the scheme did not allow it. He had always been low paid, and he remained low paid. He was generally the man whose need was greatest, and we could not do anything for him.

Miss Ward: Were any recommendations made, and what action was taken by the Department?

Mr. Paling: Recommendations may or may not have been made, but we have taken advantage of the opportunity presented to us to improve the scheme in this particular, which I consider is the most important. The needs of these people were the greatest, and we could not give them anything. The lifting up to 16s. per unit and 8s. per half unit in the case of children will make a vast difference in the homes of tens of thousands of


soldiers. I am glad to say that we have been able to do that with regard to the low wage applicants. There has been some criticism with regard to the childless wife. She does not get the benefit of this scheme, but we realise that many childless wives, by reason of age, infirmity or pregnancy, will be unlit to work and to add to the family income by that means. We have made provision to take these women into the scheme and, if they suffer from any of these disabilities, to put them on the higher scale. I consider that a great improvement. There are also the grants for sickness and death. Questions were asked by two Members who belong to the medical profession as to whether £2 is a fit figure to start on. There may be some question about that, but there can be no question about the fact that when illness occurs it often means that a load of debt is put upon the family because of the extra things they have had to get. The fact that they can receive help over and above the £2 will prove to be a generous provision, as also will the provision of £7 10s. in the case of death.
Another improvement has been made in the case of men who get extra pay, particularly proficiency pay. When a man has been in the Service six months he gets an extra 6d. a day for proficiency pay. If a man gets a war service grant of 7s. 6d. a week, for example, we inform him that when he gets his proficiency pay the amount of the grant will be reduced by 3s. 6d. per week. That has always been resented and has been a sore point ever since I went to the Ministry. I am glad to be able to say that that has now been withdrawn, and the full deduction will not be made. The man can receive an increase of 4s. before he begins to have anything deducted. Four-sevenths of any amount he may get over and above 4s. will be deducted in respect of his wife leaving three-sevenths for himself. Those are four of the main benefits which the scheme brings, and having had to work under the old system, and knowing the difficulties and the hardships inflicted particularly on low-wage applicants, I have no hesitation in saying that this scheme is a tremendous improvement, and I am glad that it is so.
Let me deal now with one or two questions which have been asked. If I do not

reply to all of them, I can promise hon. Members that we will go very carefully through the OFFICIAL REPORT and give the fullest consideration to any questions which hon. Members have asked or any suggestions they have made. Although there may have been some criticisms today, there have been a good many suggestions put forward with the idea of helping us. One thing which appears to have troubled many hon. Members is that the forms will not be obtainable at post offices but are to be given out through the Assistance Board. It is said that Assistance Board officers are not so numerous as post offices, as there is a post office in every village.. If the post offices were brought m, that would be an added facility, but it must be remembered that the applicant has two opportunities of getting a form. Not only can a form be obtained from the officers of the Assistance Board, but a serving man can get one from his unit. But the question whether post offices should be included will be given full consideration.
It has been suggested that the means test is in operation, and that has been condemned. I do not dispute that an applicant's means have to be taken into consideration, but I world point out that we also put into operation the Determination of Needs Act; in other words, all the things which are disregarded in the case of applicants for supplementary old age pensions, and which virtually abolish the household means test, will be disregarded in these cases. Therefore, if the household means test is virtually abolished in the one case because the Determination of Needs Act applies, it must be almost virtually abolished in this case.

Mr. McNeil: Does that mean that where a mother who has a son in the Army is receiving payment from members of the family in residence in the house, you are now going to disregard those payments altogether in calculating her means?

Mr. Paling: What I mean is that when the income of the family is taken into consideration all those various incomes or parts of incomes, which are referred to in the Determination of Needs Act now and are disregarded will be disregarded in this case also.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry to press the point, but does the hon. Gentleman literally mean that he is going to apply


exactly the same test as to dependency as is now applied in the case of supplementary pensions?

Mr. Paling: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means, but I mean what I have said, that the Determination of Needs Act will apply in this as in the other case. Then we were asked whether, when we draw up regulations for the staff, we shall say what are regarded as reasonable commitments. I have had a few words with my right hon. Friend the Minister about this, and he gives an unqualified "Yes" in answer to that question. Then we have been asked whether we would let applicants who have been refused a grant know that they have a right of appeal. I think the right of appeal does virtually exist. Applicants, if they are not satisfied with a decision, can send it back to have it re-examined. There is this further advantage, that in quite a number of cases where an application has been refused and the applicant is not satisfied he has not hesitated to approach his Member of Parliament, who brings up the case here.

Mr. Dobbie: The point I intended to make was this: When an application is refused will it be intimated to the individual who is told that it is refused that he has the right of appeal? Thousands of people do not know that they have a right of appeal.

Mr. Paling: I cannot give an unqualified "Yes" to that question, because in so many of these cases it is clear that then? remains no room for appeal. At any rate, the suggestion will remain for consideration. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) made an interesting speech containing some suggestions. We shall examine the suggestions very carefully. He was concerned, in the main, about the length of time it might take to put the scheme into operation. One calculation he made was that it would be 75 weeks before we had sorted the claims. We have not any such length of time in our minds. He said that the number of applications would be at least 1,500,000. That is an excessive estimate. A fairly large proportion of the men in the Forces to-day are single young men, and there will be no application from them. There are numbers of men in action, and their Gases will be reviewed without any applications coming in. It

is a serious point; there will be a tremendous increase in work, and it will take some time to get all these cases—

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No doubt the Minister will have in mind that single young men are capable of having dependants.

Mr. Paling: Exactly. Where they have dependants they will make their applications, which will be looked into and dealt with. We are making extraordinary efforts to put this scheme into operation. We have arranged the staff and the work, and we shall do everything that lies in our power to get it done as quickly and as efficiently as possible. All I can say is that we hope to get it done by Christmas. We hope that in a good many cases this pay, dating from 1st November, will come in the form of a Christmas box, and that if any are left after that time, they will be very' few. Another hon. Member spoke about the school-leaving age. I have made inquiries about that matter. I understand that the school-leaving age varies; in some districts it is 14 years and in others 15. Whatever the school-leaving age may be in any district, it will apply.
Questions were asked whether the form which we are using could include such questions as how much rent people had to pay, in order to avoid the necessity for investigation officers going to the house. I do not think the adoption of that suggestion would add to the speed required. One of the commonest complaints we hear about forms is that they tend to be too voluminous, complex and non-understandable. We have attempted to make the form in this case quite simple by making the questions as few as possible, and those questions as simple as possible. If we were to add a number of questions such as have been suggested, it would add to the difficulties, and delay rather than expedite the coming into operation of the scheme. I am sorry that my time has now gone. Other questions were asked, but, as I have said, we shall study them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, give them full consideration and do our best with them.

Mr. Crowder: Can the Minister give an undertaking that no reduction will be made in a grant until the matter has been fully explained to the wife or widow concerned?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn", put, and agreed to.